arXiv AI By Lalit Yadav, Akshaj Gurugubelli

LegalHalluLens: Typed Hallucination Auditing and Calibrated Multi-Agent Debate for Trustworthy Legal AI

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 18021v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems deployed in legal workflows hallucinate at rates that aggregate metrics report at ~52%, but this average conceals where errors concentrate and in which direction they run, leaving compliance officers without an actionable signal for trustworthy deployment.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 11

LexAgentHallu: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Profiling Hallucinations in Legal Agents

LexAgentHallu is a new benchmark that profiles hallucinations in legal agents across multi-step interactions. It contains 3,414 instances spanning 17 legal categories and 6 task types, each annotated with a dual-layer taxonomy of 7 high-level and 27 fine-grained hallucination categories. The benchmark introduces fine-grained metrics to quantify and localize failures along an agent’s execution path, revealing patterns such as the Right-Answer-Wrong-Reason effect and clustered hallucination subclasses.

By Yujin Zhou, Mingxuan Zheng, Chuxue Cao, Huang Yidan, Jiale Chen, Yike Guo, Sirui Han
arXiv AI
Jun 4

Parthenon Law: A Self-Evolving Legal-Agent Framework

arXiv:2606. 04602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As agents grow more capable, legal-domain LLM agents promise to turn document-heavy matters into reviewable work products -- yet reliable deployment faces three obstacles: no large-scale evidence on how today's strongest model-and-harness combinations behave on end-to-end legal matters; no agent architecture adapted to the legal vertical, only general-purpose harnesses; and, in a setting that keeps shifting with new facts, authorities, and deadlines, no mechanism for systems to learn from their own outcomes.

By Hejia Geng, Leo Liu
arXiv AI
Sep 18

Governance-as-Code: Translating EU AI Act Technical Requirements into Executable Compliance Pipelines for Generative AI Systems

The paper introduces Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework that translates the EU AI Act’s technical requirements into 43 machine‑checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules. GaC runs within a CI/CD pipeline, producing Article‑indexed audit evidence and providing actual Rego policy code. The authors validate GaC on two enterprise deployments, showing it reproduces manual audit findings—including three penalty‑triggering violations—while reducing audit labor by about 75%.

By Rudrendu Kumar Paul, Sourav Nandy