Papers for
legal compliance teams
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.
New method ensures exact quote matching in large language model answers
Guaranteeing Faithful Evidence Extraction in Speculative Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as interfaces for information retrieval, but they remain prone to hallucinations and faithfulness errors, in which the generated answers diverge from the retrieved evidence. While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and recent hybrid or semi-extractive approaches mitigate this issue, they do not guarantee that quoted or extracted spans are verbatim from the retrieved context. This limitation can have severe consequences in safety-critical domains, where answers must exactly match certified documentation. We introduce Constrained Hybrid Decoding (CHyD), a novel faithfulness-first paradigm for speculative RAG. While traditional speculative decoding is optimized for inference speed, CHyD repurposes this architecture to ensure faithful verbatim evidence extraction when the extraction mode is correctly triggered. Our approach enforces hard decoding constraints that restrict generation to continuous spans present in the retrieved documents. This design provides a robust but straightforward guarantee: any explicitly quoted span in the output appears verbatim in the provided context. We evaluate our method across state-of-the-art LLMs on diverse abstractive, extractive, and semi-extractive QA benchmarks, including technical datasets motivated by aircraft maintenance. Results show that existing hybrid methods frequently hallucinate quoted spans, with exact extraction accuracy dropping below 40% in technical domains. In contrast, our approach achieves near-perfect extraction faithfulness regardless of the model used. Although enforcing hard constraints introduces a trade-off with fluency-oriented metrics, our method improves exact answer correctness and remains competitive overall, highlighting its suitability for safety-critical information retrieval applications.
Which medical questions benefit most from detailed answer explanations
Which Medical Questions Deserve Rationales? Perturbation-Sensitive Selection for Robust QA
Abstract: Medical question-answering datasets often contain answer labels, whereas high-quality rationales remain scarce, noisy, or costly to validate. This changes the acquisition question: rather than asking which questions should be labeled, we ask which already-labeled questions should receive rationale supervision under a fixed token budget. We study an offline version of this problem in which candidate rationales are visible to the selector but withheld from downstream training unless selected. We propose root-mean-square Robustness-based Sample Prioritization (RMS-RSP), which perturbs hidden states only at rationale tokens and measures the resulting shift in the gold-versus-best-distractor margin. Across five medical QA datasets, MedGemma-4B-IT, three training seeds, ten budgeted non-RSP selectors, and an unbudgeted full-supervision reference, RMS-RSP provides a deliberately qualified result. Its locked-budget accuracy is 60.61% on average versus 60.08% for Random, with a statistically resolved gain only on AfriMed-QA (+1.44 points). Its full-budget accuracy area is not better than Random. However, after three answer-option reorderings, RMS-RSP improves robust accuracy and semantic consistency by 1.91 and 2.85 points on average, respectively, with the same direction on all five datasets. Training on every pool rationale raises macro accuracy to 63.74%, but consumes 29--254 times more rationale tokens and does not uniformly improve robustness. These findings do not establish universal accuracy gains; they instead suggest that rationale-local boundary sensitivity can identify supervision that improves invariance to semantically equivalent formatting changes.
Search agents struggle to provide accurate civic information across governments
CIVI: A Framework for Diagnosing Search Agent Failures in Civic Information
Abstract: Large Language Models are increasingly deployed in public-sector settings, where incorrect guidance can cause irreversible harm. We introduce CIVI, the first framework for diagnosing search agent failures in civic information. Its benchmark instantiation jointly spans cross-national, interjurisdictional government contexts (federal, state, and local) and functional categories from an internationally adopted United Nations standard. We evaluate ten frontier search agents and find that none matches an attentive human baseline. Alongside accuracy, CIVI measures search invocation rate, selective no-search accuracy, and how often agents cite authoritative government sources. To perform this diagnosis, we introduce ARISE, which decomposes agentic search failures into four mutually exclusive modes, isolated via source-injection ablation. ARISE attributes 72.1% of all observed failures to retrieval-bound causes rather than to gaps in the models' parametric knowledge.