Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research investigates methods for recovering supporting evidence in legal review workflows using small language models trained solely on verdicts, without human-annotated evidence spans. The study compares label-only post-training against rejection sampling strategies, demonstrating that both approaches significantly improve the model's ability to cite relevant passages despite lacking explicit training data for those citations. This work addresses a critical efficiency challenge in deploying AI for high-stakes domains where annotation costs are prohibitive but evidentiary traceability is mandatory.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Verdicts Without Annotated Evidence: Rejection Sampling or Label-Only Post-Training for Evidence Recovery?

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.06962v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In many review workflows the verdict is the only thing retained. The passages behind it are not marked, because that annotation costs far more than recording the decision. We measure how much of that evidence a small language model can recover when it is post-trained on the verdicts alone, with no human evidence labels at any stage. On ContractNLI the human evidence spans are held out until evaluation. Matching the recorded verdict and agreeing with those spans are not the same thing: across six systems the two scores are only weakly related and rank the systems differently, so accuracy is a poor guide when the citations have to be reviewable. Label-only training on the bare verdict reaches accuracy 0.896 and span F1 0.564. Rejection sampling, which keeps a generated trace only when its verdict matches the record and then picks one by an automatic source-grounding score, reaches 0.797 and 0.556, against 0.747 and 0.493 before training. Verbatim citation rises from 0.597 to 0.729 under label-only training and to 0.701 under rejection sampling. One seed on one corpus cannot say which method is better, but both improve the evidence without anyone annotating it.

Title:Verdicts Without Annotated Evidence: Rejection Sampling or Label-Only Post-Training for Evidence Recovery?

Abstract:In many review workflows the verdict is the only thing retained. The passages behind it are not marked, because that annotation costs far more than recording the decision. We measure how much of that evidence a small language model can recover when it is post-trained on the verdicts alone, with no human evidence labels at any stage. On ContractNLI the human evidence spans are held out until evaluation. Matching the recorded verdict and agreeing with those spans are not the same thing: across six systems the two scores are only weakly related and rank the systems differently, so accuracy is a poor guide when the citations have to be reviewable. Label-only training on the bare verdict reaches accuracy 0.896 and span F1 0.564. Rejection sampling, which keeps a generated trace only when its verdict matches the record and then picks one by an automatic source-grounding score, reaches 0.797 and 0.556, against 0.747 and 0.493 before training. Verbatim citation rises from 0.597 to 0.729 under label-only training and to 0.701 under rejection sampling. One seed on one corpus cannot say which method is better, but both improve the evidence without anyone annotating it.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.06962 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.06962v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.06962 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.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 302 words

Related coverage