The paper investigates whether the object selected in a grounded language‑model pipeline actually reaches the reader, a failure that can break the handoff between stages. By auditing 600 HybridQA questions across three selector families, the authors find that exact key lookup and title matching recover the selected object in all 1,463 resolvable records, but body‑only BM25 omits it in 26.6% of cases at cutoff five, while hybrid retrieval with reranking omits it only 1.0%. The study also shows that misalignment between selected and retrieved objects can reduce exact match scores by up to 31 points, and introduces the Returned‑Object Profile (ROP) as a tool for reproducible auditing.
By Siddharth Vohra, Runmin Jiang, Xiaomo Li, Min Xu
arXiv:2608. 09393v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We identify and quantify temporal misgrounding: the systematic retrieval and citation of the currently in-force version of a legal article when the applicable version is an earlier or future one.
By Rose Cymbler, Daniel Guez, Laurent Fabre
arXiv:2605. 03534v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, yet relevance does not guarantee sufficiency: a topical passage may still fail to justify the answer.
By Jingxi Qiu, Zeyu Han, Cheng Huang
arXiv:2609.15830v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve access to complex information; however, retrieving evidence alone does not ensure that answers are g...
By Sumit Barua, Guan Hong, Halil Dursunoglu, Charles Rodgers, Alvis Fong
arXiv:2509. 00761v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed for legal question answering, where evaluations typically focus on multiple-choice accuracy.
By Boqin Yuan, Ziqi Wang
The paper reports the ABAI submission to COLIEE 2026 Task 1, a case law retrieval challenge that suppresses cited passages, and details a four‑stage retrieval pipeline: multi‑view BM25 with reciprocal rank fusion, neural reranking, graph‑based features via a graph attention network, and a LightGBM meta‑learner over 34 features. The best run achieved an F1 score of 0.177 on the official test set, compared to a cross‑validated 0.311, and the authors attribute the gap to a recall ceiling, temporal distribution shift, and threshold miscalibration. A controlled post‑hoc study examined the impact of threshold transfer, decision quality across time, and query similarity, and identified specific remedies—such as BM25 length‑normalisation tuning, event‑triple views, and dense fusion—that improved recall, while other interventions had no effect.
By Minhan Cho, Soyoung Park, Daejin Choi, Jinyoung Han
arXiv:2604. 19047v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Existing QA benchmarks typically assume distinct documents with minimal overlap, yet real-world retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems operate on corpora such as financial reports, legal codes, and patents, where information is highly redundant and documents exhibit strong inter-document similarity.
By Hanjun Cho, Jay-Yoon Lee
TRACE is a system designed to bridge the grounding contract gap in LitTraceQA by combining target-aware retrieval, independent typed evidence localization, multimodal table extraction, and schema-driven table construction. It indexes 27,487 papers using multiple representations while preserving question targets, predicts observation units for tables, and assembles rows with evaluator-compatible key normalization. On the official test set, TRACE achieves a 0.760613 overall score, with high paper F1, evidence F1, and multiple-choice accuracy, though table-row and macro cell performance remain lower.
By Sachin Gupta, Divya Godara
The paper introduces a penalty‑aware evaluation framework for Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) systems that uses asymmetric scoring, knowledge‑gap canaries, and a failure‑attribution pipeline. Applying this framework to three commercial RAG products and a baseline on SimpleQA‑Verified, the authors find that while overall accuracy is similar across systems, canary violation rates vary dramatically, showing that systems differ more in when they answer than in what they answer. The study demonstrates that penalty‑aware scoring can reorder system rankings and is robust across different penalty settings.
By Alden Do Rosario, Hussein Younes, Felipe Pires
The paper introduces three retrieval methods for Polish statutory law that use language‑model annotations attached to articles as surrogates. The methods—ASCR, ASCR‑H, and DTF—vary in cost and quality, with ASCR‑H achieving the highest rank‑one accuracy on bar exam questions, while DTF offers competitive performance with lower latency and cost. Extensive evaluation against 14 baselines on 300 exam questions demonstrates significant improvements in head‑rank accuracy and discusses limitations such as coverage asymmetry and negative results for lemmatisation, pseudo‑relevance feedback, and query rewriting.
By Orkun Yi\u{g}it Cengiz
arXiv:2609.10293v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the sou...
By Chen Qian, Yimeng Wang, Yu Chen, Lingfei Wu, Andreas Stathopoulos
AtomCite is an agentic framework that verifies and corrects page‑level citations in multi‑page documents by parsing answers into claims, checking each claim against the cited page image, and applying a deterministic repair policy. The authors introduce DocCite, the first benchmark for this task, built on MP‑DocVQA and DUDE, containing 928 injected instances and 1,909 verified natural errors. Across Gemini, Claude, and GPT models, AtomCite achieves about 93% verification accuracy and improves citation precision from 34% to 87‑90%, while also enhancing hallucination detection in open‑source models.
By Chen Qian, Yimeng Wang, Yu Chen, Lingfei Wu, Andreas Stathopoulos