arXiv:2604. 06173v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Legal QA benchmarks have predominantly focused on case law, overlooking the unique challenges of statute-centric regulatory reasoning.
arXiv:2505. 02763v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the central promises of legal AI is to automate drudgery -- the formal, repetitive tasks of lawyers' work that consume time without calling for much discretion.
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.
Large language models increasingly rely on long-form reasoning for complex tasks, yet their reasoning traces may drift away from the supplied context when evidence is sparse, noisy, or in conflict with parametric knowledge. Existing grounding methods either attach citations after generation or encourage evidence retrieval inside the trace, but they often do not ensure that cited content is sufficient for the local inference and final answer.
arXiv:2608.03756v2 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A common task in legal Information Retrieval (IR) is to find relevant legal sources from case-law collections. While legal practice often requires pi...
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.
arXiv:2607. 03325v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present an automated pipeline that decomposes Italian tax-court judgments into individual legal issues and extracts, for each issue, a structured XML representation grounded in the IRAC framework and the legal syllogism.
arXiv:2608. 16394v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generating regulation-compliant test scenarios is essential for validating safety-critical automotive systems, yet Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to ground outputs in long, hierarchical standards.
DeepWeaver addresses the evidence synthesis gap in open‑ended question answering by weaving noisy retrieved evidence into comprehensive answers. It introduces Thought Block Chains (TBCs) that organize claims, key information, and citations, allowing the system to revise and expand evidence before final generation. Evaluations on LoQA and DeepResearch Bench show improved content sufficiency, citation grounding, and detail preservation across multiple LLMs.
The paper presents a retrieval‑augmented generation pipeline for answering regulatory compliance questions in finance. It builds a three‑stage retriever on LegalBERT and a compact 2B–12B generator served with 4‑bit quantization, achieving a Recall@10 of 0.774 on the ObliQA benchmark and improving answer quality via RAFT‑LoRA fine‑tuning. However, the adapted models fail to transfer to Australian case‑law questions, and a closed‑book model performs almost as well while lacking verifiable grounding.
DeepWeaver is a framework designed to improve open‑ended question answering by weaving noisy retrieved evidence into comprehensive, well‑cited answers. It introduces Thought Block Chains (TBCs) that organize claims, key information, and supporting evidence, and uses subordinate TBCs to refine and expand the evidence before final generation. Evaluations on LoQA and DeepResearch Bench show that DeepWeaver enhances content sufficiency, citation grounding, and detail preservation across multiple LLMs.
arXiv:2606. 26449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented systems routinely present citations alongside generated answers, yet a citation does not confirm that the corresponding source meaningfully shaped the output.