Papers for

legal analysts

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

LLM research agents often make stronger claims than documents support

Quantifying Claim Smoothing by LLM Research Agents

Abstract: Deep research, or any use of large language models (LLMs) to read a large document collection and produce insights, requires synthesizing information from different sources. In this work, we find that LLMs produce long-form research reports that read as confident syntheses but which fail to accurately reflect the underlying documents. We call this failure smoothing. In collapsing diverse and potentially conflicting sources into a single narrative, the model discards the evidential "jaggedness" of its corpus and asserts conclusions more decisive than the citations can support. We introduce a claim level scoring pipeline, SmoothScore, to quantify this effect. Our pipeline extracts key conclusive claims from model generated reports, then finds evidence relevant to each claim and clusters that evidence along high level aspects. Finally, each claim is scored with respect to the evidence to quantify the degree of smoothing done by the agent. Across 7 systems and 4 datasets, we find that agents consistently produce stronger claims than warranted.

Mon 26 OctComputation and Language
The gist
When large language models (LLMs) read many documents to write research reports, they tend to make conclusions that sound more confident than the actual evidence allows. This happens because the models overlook differences and disagreements in the original sources and create a smoother, more decisive story. The authors call this problem claim smoothing. They built a system named SmoothScore to measure how much the models smooth claims by comparing claims to their supporting evidence. They tested this on several systems and datasets and found that claim smoothing is a common issue.
Open → 2610.35793v1

High-level text preprocessing improves similarity accuracy in discursive documents

High-Level Text Preprocessing for Semantic Similarity Analysis of Discursive Texts: A Framework and Empirical Demonstration

Abstract: Semantic Textual Similarity (STS) methods assume that a document's lexical content faithfully represents what it asserts. This assumption fails for discursive documents that discuss, compare, critique, and contextualize other positions in the process of articulating their own. The result is semantic diffusion: similarity scores between documents are inflated by vocabulary acquired through discursive engagement rather than substantive alignment. Standard Natural Language Processing (NLP) preprocessing (tokenization, stopword removal, stemming, lemmatization) cannot address this problem because it operates at the lexical level, treating all content identically regardless of its discursive function. This paper introduces high-level text preprocessing: a systematic, rule-based intervention applied before the standard preprocessing pipeline to isolate each document's actual claim from its discursive structure. We propose 12 rules, each with an explicit rationale, and demonstrate their effect on an encyclopedic philosophical corpus: three entries from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and consequentialism). A three-phase experiment using eight Transformer-based STS models shows that preprocessing reduces centroid cosine similarity scores across all three theory pairs, with 23 of 24 model-pair comparisons showing the expected decrease and cross-model agreement ranging from 7-1 to 8-0. We introduce the semantic diffusion index (SDI), a per-document metric for assessing the semantic reorientation between a document's raw and high-level preprocessed representations. Although the framework is demonstrated using philosophical texts, it potentially addresses a domain-agnostic problem applicable to legal texts, policy documents, academic articles, and any genre in which a discursive approach introduces vocabulary from positions the document does not endorse.

Sun 27 SeptComputation and LanguageInformation RetrievalMachine Learning
The gist
Documents like philosophical essays often include lots of discussion about other ideas, which can confuse methods that try to find how similar documents are based on their words. The authors introduce a new way to clean up the text before comparison by separating the main claims from the surrounding discussion. This helps the similarity scores reflect true agreement instead of just shared vocabulary. They tested this on philosophy texts using advanced language models and found the approach consistently lowered inflated similarity scores, showing clearer differences between ideas.
Open → 2609.33983v1