Correctly answering a question grounded in normative documents often depends on information outside any single passage: whether the retrieved document is the version currently in force; whether it app...
The paper reports on building a retrieval‑augmented legal assistant for Uzbek that operates in both a managed cloud service and an on‑premises deployment. It introduces two new domain benchmarks—one for retrieval and one for end‑to‑end QA—and shows that fine‑tuning an open‑weight text embedder (UTE‑1) can close the performance gap with proprietary models under tight cost and latency constraints. The authors also provide negative results for a QLoRA experiment and release the benchmarks, evaluation code, and the fine‑tuned embedder for future low‑resource legal NLP work.
By Tatul Danielyan, Mariam Avetisyan, Hrant Davtyan
The paper introduces ingest‑time fact compilation, an architecture that preprocesses and compiles corpus data into self‑contained facts with resolved revisions, deletions, and source trust. By storing this compiled state, query‑time models can retrieve answers directly, avoiding costly reconstruction from raw passages. Experiments show that this approach reduces read cost per question by 12.89× and token usage by 21.6× while maintaining accuracy.
By Kyle Wild, Yusuke Takahashi, Asako Uraki
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:2608. 08512v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evolving documents, such as laws, tax codes, and software documentation, are amended, replaced, and sometimes reverted over time, so a question has different correct answers at different dates.
By Mahbub E Sobhani, Md. Faiyaz Abdullah Sayeedi, Fahmid Hasan Chowdhury, Md Adnan Arefeen, Farig Sadeque, Md. Faizul Bari, Swakkhar Shatabda
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