Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Question-Answering Approach to Evaluating Legal Summaries

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

arxiv 2309.15016 v2 pith:KMCHE7UZ submitted 2023-09-26 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords summarygpt-4referencegeneratedlegalsummariesanswersapproach
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Traditional evaluation metrics like ROUGE compare lexical overlap between the reference and generated summaries without taking argumentative structure into account, which is important for legal summaries. In this paper, we propose a novel legal summarization evaluation framework that utilizes GPT-4 to generate a set of question-answer pairs that cover main points and information in the reference summary. GPT-4 is then used to generate answers based on the generated summary for the questions from the reference summary. Finally, GPT-4 grades the answers from the reference summary and the generated summary. We examined the correlation between GPT-4 grading with human grading. The results suggest that this question-answering approach with GPT-4 can be a useful tool for gauging the quality of the summary.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. From Judgments to Issues: Structured Extraction of Legal Reasoning with Citation-Hallucination Control

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A cost-efficient DeepSeek-V3 pipeline extracts IRAC-grounded issue-level XML from ~330k Italian tax judgments and cuts citation hallucinations from 11.7% to 0.9% via Linkoln matching, validated by two tax-law PhDs on ...

Pith tools