legal document reviewers

Abstract: Scientific information-extraction systems often return a claim with an evidence string, which users must locate in the original PDF. This is challenging because the extracted evidence and PDF text layer are different representations: line wrapping, Unicode variants, superscripts, citation markers, and fragmented items alter text sequences and geometry. We present a source-preserving alignment framework: normalize text for robust matching while preserving provenance for accurate localization. It aligns evidence with normalized page text, maps matches back to source-character spans, and renders only their geometry. When exact alignment fails, line-break-aware token alignment recovers supported spans while excluding unmatched noise. Experiments on 1,020 chemistry papers show that the framework achieves a 92.6\% quote-level automatic localization rate, compared with 43.6\% for text search and 19.1\% for a precomputed bounding-box baseline. Component ablation confirms distinct contributions from normalization and approximate token alignment, while human verification assesses the visual correctness of returned highlights. Overall, these results demonstrate that reliable evidence verification requires robust matching and precise localization within a shared source-preserving alignment representation.

Abstract: Systematic reviews underpin clinical guidelines, yet their data-extraction step is a major expert-labor bottleneck bound by a protocolized workflow: two reviewers extract each study independently, an adjudicator resolves disagreements, and the team keeps an auditable record of how every value was produced. Large language models can assist with extraction, but that assistance must fit established review protocols and preserve reproducibility. We present EviStreams, a live, open-source, no-code web platform that puts review teams in control of AI-assisted extraction at three key stages: program design (a structured decomposition approved before any code runs), field specification (typed field definitions calibrated from a pilot), and extracted predictions (reviewer-blinded dual review with adjudication). Working through a form builder, a domain expert defines typed fields rather than prompts, runs extraction over uploaded PDFs, inspects every value alongside the supporting passage it came from, and resolves a reviewer-blinded dual review into an auditable consensus export. An evaluation across four clinical corpora and three frontier model families, released with the system, shows that extraction quality is shaped far more by the field specification than by the choice of model. EviStreams is live at https://evistreams.com/demo and released under Apache-2.0.

Abstract: Clinical data abstraction, the process of distilling structured information from patient records, plays a key role in advancing knowledge about diseases such as cancer. Information extraction (IE) with large language models (LLMs) could accelerate this process, but it is unclear whether current frameworks effectively support clinical researchers without AI expertise. To address this, we co-designed an interactive LLM-based abstraction system called Libretto with seven cancer research teams, then evaluated the system's ability to help them answer real-world research questions. We found that while clinicians knew where and how to annotate complex concepts in patient notes, in twelve of fourteen tasks they faced barriers to replicating those intuitions with LLMs. Contextual note reliability judgments, difficulties in steering vibe-coded prompts, and inflexible evaluation strategies necessitated fundamental changes to the IE workflow. Our results highlight open problems for HCI research to bridge the gaps between AI data work tools and clinical users' needs.

Abstract: As software engineering research submission counts surge, peer reviewers face severe time constraints, making systematic verification of citation-supported claims prohibitively expensive. Consequently, unsubstantiated claims and semantic drift can propagate undetected across scientific literature. Existing approaches such as fact-checking and retrieval-augmented generation tools operate on open-domain web data or evaluate claims in isolation without processing complete manuscripts. To address this gap, we present RefVerifier, a semi-automated, citation-bounded reference verification prototype designed to support in academic peer review. RefVerifier extracts citation-bearing sentences from manuscripts, checks bibliography metadata against scholarly databases, resolves references to full-text open-access PDFs, localizes relevant evidence passages, and generates verdicts with natural language explanations. Evaluating RefVerifier on public benchmarks shows claim detection at an F1 score of 0.990, open-access resolution of 57.6% of references, and evidence localization with a hit rate of 98% on abstracts and 68% on complete cited papers. In an end-to-end test with eight manuscripts, RefVerifier achieves a verdict accuracy of 71%. By automating document retrieval and evidence localization while preserving reviewer oversight, RefVerifier provides first indicators for the feasibility of semi-automated integrity checks in scholarly publishing.