Comparing GenAI to Machine Learning and Manual Review for eDiscovery

Abstract:Keeling et al. [Keeling2026Generative] report on a case study recently conducted by Redgrave LLP in which they assert that Relativity's Generative AI Review tool (aiR) achieved 88% recall while Relativity Assisted Learning (RAL), its machine-learning tool, achieved 64% recall. These results are not comparable because the methods employed have different objectives, because of inter-assessor disagreement, and because they represent different recall-precision and cost-benefit trade-offs. Our analysis of the Redgrave data indicates that, when these differences are taken into account, aiR and manual review are comparable. Furthermore, established machine-learning models employing Continuous Active Learning (CAL) show state-of-the-art effectiveness, and superior efficiency, when trained only on a sample of 2,000 first-pass-reviewer responsiveness determinations.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)

arXiv:2610.16925 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.16925v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.16925 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.