REVIEW 2 cited by
Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Improving Factuality in Legal Question Answering
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Hallucination, or the generation of incorrect or fabricated information, remains a critical challenge in large language models (LLMs), particularly in high-stake domains such as legal question answering (QA). In order to mitigate the hallucination rate in legal QA, we first introduce a benchmark called LegalHalBench and three automatic metrics to evaluate the common hallucinations when LLMs answer legal questions. We then propose a hallucination mitigation method that integrates behavior cloning and a novel Hard Sample-aware Iterative Direct Preference Optimization (HIPO). We conduct extensive real-data experiments to validate the effectiveness of our approach. Our results demonstrate remarkable improvements in various metrics, including the newly proposed Non-Hallucinated Statute Rate, Statute Relevance Rate, Legal Claim Truthfulness, as well as traditional metrics such as METEOR, BERTScore, ROUGE-L, and win rates.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Reasoning Consensus: Structural Ensembling of LLM Reasoning via Weighted DAG Aggregation
Combining multiple LLMs' reasoning traces into weighted DAGs gives an auditable consensus graph that matches self-consistency and modestly improves on majority voting.
-
Evaluating LLM-based Approaches to Legal Citation Prediction: Domain-specific Pre-training, Fine-tuning, or RAG? A Benchmark and an Australian Law Case Study
The paper releases the AusLaw Citation Benchmark and shows that instruction-tuned 7B-8B LLMs plus retrieval re-ranking outperform general and law-specific pretrained LLMs for legal citation prediction, reaching about ...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.