Papers for

legal research 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.

Active evidence checking improves fact verification accuracy

Stop or Clarify? Experience-Conditioned Active Fact Verification

Abstract: Fact-verification benchmarks score the final label, while an interactive verifier must first decide whether the available evidence is sufficient. We focus on that intermediate Stop-or-Clarify Decision. Uncertainty alone is insufficient, because the benefit of another evidence-acquisition step is unknown before the step is taken. Sequential Experience-Adaptive Clarification (SEAC) wraps a fixed verifier with a lightweight evidence-acquisition policy. For each claim, SEAC retrieves evidence, runs the verifier, forms a label-free decision state, and combines stop risk with an observational clarification-utility estimate from earlier executed trajectories. Clarification is requested only when this score exceeds the action cost and decision threshold. On SciFact, LIAR, and FEVER, SEAC improves mean accuracy and macro-F1 over the compared fact-verification and active-retrieval baselines. Equal-budget and formula-level diagnostics support selective clarification as a contributor to the gain, while the small SciFact split leaves its paired improvement inconclusive.

Mon 26 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Fact-checking systems often decide whether a claim is true or false based on gathered evidence, but it's unclear when they should stop looking for more information. The authors propose a method called SEAC that helps systems decide if they've found enough evidence or if they should ask for more. This method learns from past experience to balance the benefit of clarifying with the cost of searching further. Tests show SEAC improves accuracy on popular fact-checking tasks by selectively gathering more evidence only when needed.
Open → 2610.34941v1

Visual benchmark tests document retrieval across many pages and sources

VL-DocIR: A Benchmark for Vision-Based Long Document Information Retrieval

Abstract: Vision-based document retrieval has improved rapidly, but current evaluation settings still emphasize short documents and single relevant pages. This leaves an important gap between leaderboard performance and realistic long-document retrieval, where the evidence needed to answer a query may span multiple pages or even multiple documents. We present VL-DocIR, a page-level benchmark for evidence-complete visual long-document retrieval. VL-DocIR is built from 29,641 HTML-born documents rendered into 388,548 page images from Wikipedia, arXiv, PubMed, and SEC proxy statements. It contains 271,760 queries across 23 domains and six evidence structures, covering single-page, within-document multi-page, and cross-document evidence configurations. Evidence annotations are grounded to rendered pages and HTML element identifiers, and queries are filtered with a cleaning pipeline targeting clarity, correctness, closedness, and the absence of explicit layout references. We evaluate leading single-vector and multi-vector visual retrievers together with diagnostic retrieval settings such as document-context scoring, query splitting, reranking, and round-robin ensembles. The strongest evaluated configuration reaches 69.3 nDCGAll@10 and 80.6 RecallAll@10 under structure-balanced Macro evaluation, but source- and evidence-structure breakdowns show that cross-document retrieval remains substantially harder than single-page retrieval, and that document-context scoring is especially helpful for within-document multi-page queries. VL-DocIR exposes these failure modes and provides a more demanding target for visual long-document retrieval. The new dataset and code will be made publicly available at https://yufanchen96.github.io/VL-DocIR.

Mon 12 OctArtificial IntelligenceComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Finding relevant information in long documents is harder than in short ones because the answer might be on multiple pages or documents. The authors created VL-DocIR, a big test set made of page images from sources like Wikipedia and scientific papers, with lots of questions designed to need evidence from multiple pages or documents. They tested existing visual document search methods and found that searching across multiple pages or documents is still much harder than single-page search. Their work highlights where current methods fail and provides a challenging benchmark to help improve long-document retrieval.
Open → 2610.17057v1

Lit3R system retrieves and reads science papers to answer questions

Lit3R: Retrieve-Relate-Read for Evidence-Grounded Question Answering over Scientific Literature

Abstract: We describe tus-nlp's Lit3R (Retrieve-Relate-Read) system for LitTraceQA, a shared task for literature-grounded question answering that requires systems to retrieve relevant papers, identify supporting evidence, and generate answers. Lit3R combines off-the-shelf retrieval, reranking, and large language model (LLM) components without task-specific training. The retriever iteratively combines BM25-based sparse and dense retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, and LLM-based verification, and complements retrieval based on the question with paper-to-paper expansion. The reader first identifies supporting evidence within individual papers and then synthesizes evidence across papers to produce the final answer and evidence trace. On the official test set, our system ranked 4th on the leaderboard. Our code is available at https://github.com/tus-ist-nlp/littraceqa.

Tue 15 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Answering questions with evidence from many scientific papers is hard because you first need to find the right papers, then figure out the important parts, and finally give a clear answer. The authors created Lit3R, a system that looks up papers using different search methods, checks if they really match the question, and then picks out evidence from those papers. It combines information from multiple papers to give a final answer along with the evidence it found. This system was tested in a competition and ranked fourth overall.
Open → 2609.16912v1