arXiv AI By M. Mikail Demir, M. Abdullah Canbaz

When Citations Mislead? A Claim-Level Benchmark for Legal Hallucination Detection

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces PARCEL, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether legal claims are supported by cited authorities. Using 3,396 claims from New York State Court of Appeals decisions, the authors label each claim as Supported, Refuted, or Not Found and cast the task as a three‑way natural language inference problem. State‑of‑the‑art LLMs achieve up to 0.97 accuracy in zero‑shot settings, yet they still frequently misclassify unsupported claims as supported, especially when fabricated but plausible citations are present.

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 Computation and Language
Sep 17

Legal LLM Hallucination Should Be Evaluated as Failure of Legal Warrant

The paper argues that hallucinations by legal language models should be judged as failures of legal warrant rather than mere factual or citation errors. It defines claim-authority warrant as a context-sensitive relationship between a legal claim and applicable, current authority, and proposes that evaluating warrant can uncover failures missed by traditional accuracy or citation metrics. The authors outline a pilot study, benchmark specifications, and a research agenda to assess whether legal AI systems’ claims are properly licensed by law.

By Maksym Taranukhin, Vered Shwartz
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 11

Authority, Truth, and Citation Bias: A Large-Scale Multi-Domain Benchmark for Studying Epistemic Susceptibility in Large Language Models

Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Gavel: Agent Meets Checklist for Evaluating LLMs on Long-Context Legal Summarization

The paper introduces Gavel, a framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on long-context legal summarization tasks. Gavel includes a reference-based component (Gavel-Ref) with checklist, residual-fact, and writing-style checks, and a reference-free component (Gavel-Agent) that assesses factual coverage directly from source documents. Experiments on 12 frontier LLMs reveal that models tend to omit key information more than hallucinate, perform well on simple checklist items but struggle with rare, complex items, and their performance degrades with longer cases. Gavel-Agent cuts token usage by at least 36% compared to traditional methods while maintaining competitive accuracy, and it also generalizes effectively to the medical domain.

By Yao Dou, Benjamin Mamut, Wei Xu
arXiv AI
Jun 2

Med-V1: Small Language Models for Zero-shot and Scalable Biomedical Evidence Attribution

arXiv:2603. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.

By Qiao Jin, Yin Fang, Lauren He, Yifan Yang, Guangzhi Xiong, Zhizheng Wang, Nicholas Wan, Joey Chan, Donald C. Comeau, Robert Leaman, Charalampos S. Floudas, Aidong Zhang, Michael F. Chiang, Yifan Peng, Zhiyong Lu