Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Who Speaks Matters: Authority-Aware Multi-View RAG over Italian Parliamentary Proceedings

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A retrieval-augmented generation system for Italian parliamentary proceedings makes quotation faithfulness a design guarantee: every quote is a verbatim substring of an official transcript.

desk verdict A real, open-source applied RAG system with a genuine civic-information use case, but its by-construction quotation guarantee is narrower than advertised and the authority model is plausible rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13410 v1 pith:RPMEMXSI submitted 2026-08-13 cs.AI

Mirko Tritella , Riccardo Pozzi , Matteo Palmonari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords Retrieval-AugmentedGenerationParliamentaryNLPExpertFindingKnowledgeGraphsQuotationFaithfulnessMulti-PerspectiveSummarizationAuthority-awarerankingItalianParliament
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

ParliamentRAG is a retrieval-augmented generation system for the Italian Chamber of Deputies that aims to produce balanced, traceable summaries of parliamentary positions. The paper's central claim is that by making speaker authority query-dependent and by replacing model-generated quotations with placeholder-based verbatim extractions from official transcripts, a RAG system can guarantee that every quotation is faithful to the source while still matching a frontier commercial baseline on overall quality. The system retrieves evidence through a dual channel of dense chunk search and legislative-act graph traversal, reranks by a composite score that includes authority, and generates one section per parliamentary group. Evaluated on 15 policy topics against NotebookLM, ParliamentRAG achieves 0.97 group coverage versus 0.95, 1.00 quotation faithfulness versus 0.95, and is preferred on source-related dimensions but not on prose quality.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the authority score in Equation 2, a weighted sum of semantic-similarity terms between the query and embeddings of speaker attributes (profession, education, committees, roles) and time-decayed counts of legislative acts and speech interventions, with hand-set weights such as $w_{\text{committee}}=0.25$ and $w_{\text{speech interventions}}=0.25$. The other load-bearing mechanism is the Cite stage of the generation pipeline: the language model emits placeholders with character offsets into the original transcript, and a deterministic resolver replaces them with the exact source text, so no generated quotation can differ from the record. Together these mechanisms implement the paper's three principles of multi-view representation, authority awareness, and quotation traceability.

What would settle it

An ablation of the ranking equation with the authority term removed ($w_a=0$) that shows no drop in group coverage, quotation faithfulness, or expert preference on source-related dimensions would falsify the paper's claim that authority-aware reranking contributes to the system's performance; equally, a benchmark topic on which the authority model ranks a speaker with no legislative record on that topic above all co-signatories would undermine the expertise signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the three risks of applying RAG to parliamentary transcripts—speaker dominance, lack of topical expertise weighting, and citation misattribution—can be addressed jointly by architectural design rather than by prompting alone. Its core discovery is a pipeline in which a query-dependent authority score, computed from interpretable weighted components (profession, education, committee membership, legislative acts, speech interventions, institutional role) with temporal decay and coalition-aware invalidation, reranks retrieved evidence and selects one expert per parliamentary group. In the generation stage, the language model never writes quotation text; it inserts character-offset placeholders that a deterministic resolver replaces with verbatim substrings of the original transcripts, making quotation faithfulness 1.00 by construction rather than by measurement. The authors claim this is the first system to integrate structured parliamentary graphs with query-dependent authority modeling and multi-view generation in a unified RAG architecture.

Load-bearing premise

The hand-set authority weights are assumed to correctly identify topical experts; no ablation shows that the authority term improves results over content-based reranking alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quotation faithfulness in RAG becomes a hard guarantee rather than a measured property, making the system suitable for journalistic and institutional verification workflows.
  • Because generation is stratified per parliamentary group, the retrieval stage becomes the sole bottleneck for coverage; improving retrieval recall should directly raise the 0.97 group-coverage figure toward 1.0.
  • The authority weights and components are explicitly interpretable, so the model can be audited or reweighted for other legislatures, languages, or personalization without retraining.
  • The comparison suggests that prompt-level instructions alone cannot enforce verbatim quotation or systematic group coverage, implying that civic-information tools should adopt structural constraints rather than relying on stronger base models.
  • Mean authority of cited speakers is only slightly higher than the baseline (0.53 vs 0.52), a direct corollary of the deliberate low weight (0.05) placed on authority in the reranking equation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The offset-based placeholder mechanism is domain-agnostic; the same Cite stage could be transplanted to any source-grounded generation task where verbatim fidelity matters, such as legal opinion summaries, clinical notes, or financial disclosures, provided the source text is stored with character offsets.
  • The absence of ablations means the authority model's actual contribution is untested; a natural test is to compare ParliamentRAG against itself with authority reranking disabled, and against a version with static query-independent authority, on the same benchmark.
  • Because the evaluation used a curated, pre-retrieved context for the commercial baseline, the comparison does not test end-to-end retrieval; a full-corpus baseline would likely widen the gap on source coverage, but this remains to be demonstrated.
  • The paper implicitly assumes that one expert per parliamentary group is the right granularity; an extension could weight groups by seat share or generate a dissenting-minority view for intra-group factions, which would change the balance semantics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. ParliamentRAG is a retrieval-augmented generation system for Italian Chamber of Deputies proceedings that combines a parliamentary knowledge graph, a query-dependent authority model, and a multi-view generation pipeline. Given a user query, it retrieves speech chunks and legislative acts, reranks evidence using relevance, diversity, group coverage, authority, and salience, selects one expert per parliamentary group, and generates a structured summary in which quotations are introduced as placeholders with character offsets and later replaced by verbatim transcript text. The authors claim this design guarantees quotation faithfulness by construction, achieves near-perfect group coverage, and matches Google NotebookLM on overall satisfaction while being preferred on source-related dimensions. The evaluation uses 15 policy topics, automated metrics, and a blind A/B study with six domain experts, concluding that authority-aware multi-view RAG is a promising approach for faithful parliamentary synthesis.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful applied contribution to parliamentary NLP and RAG: the offset-based quotation grounding is a genuinely different mechanism from prompt-based citation, the authority model is interpretable and query-dependent, and the system is released with source code and a live deployment. The authors also deserve credit for a blind expert evaluation against a strong commercial baseline and for explicitly acknowledging the absence of internal ablations and the small benchmark size. However, the significance is currently bounded by three issues: the by-construction quotation guarantee is narrower than stated because it does not constrain attribution correctness; the mean-authority metric is computed with the same model used for ranking; and the absence of ablations leaves the authority component's contribution unquantified. These concerns do not invalidate the system, but they weaken the paper's strongest claims as they stand.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3] The claim that the Cite stage 'prevents hallucinations by construction' conflates lexical fidelity with attribution correctness. The pipeline only guarantees that the emitted string is a verbatim substring of some transcript, because the language model inserts character offsets that are later replaced by source text. Nothing in the description constrains those offsets to a verified candidate set or to the speaker/evidence associated with the claim being supported. A model could select an offset that points to a genuine quote by a different speaker or to an unrelated passage, and the deterministic replacement would still satisfy the Quotation Faithfulness metric defined in Section 5.1 as the fraction of quotations that exactly match substrings of the original interventions. Thus QF = 1.00 is compatible with systematic misattribution, which is precisely the risk the introduction says the system addresses. The by-construction guarantee should be restated as 'no fabricated wording' and supplemented with an attribution evaluation that checks whether each quoted span belongs to the speaker and evidence cited in the summary.
  2. [Section 5.1, Table 1] The Mean Authority (MA) comparison is partly self-confirming. MA is computed with the same query-dependent authority model that is used in Equation (1) to rerank evidence, and for NotebookLM the context is curated by ParliamentRAG's retrieval pipeline, which includes the authority score. The difference of 0.53 vs. 0.52 therefore cannot be interpreted as evidence that ParliamentRAG selects more authoritative speakers in any model-independent sense. The authors acknowledge this circularity for NotebookLM, but the same issue affects the ParliamentRAG numbers: MA is an internal design metric, not an external validation of expert quality. The paper should either drop MA from the comparative claims or validate the authority model against an independent signal, for example committee membership in the relevant policy area or expert ratings of cited speakers.
  3. [Section 4.2, Equation (2)] The authority component, which the abstract names as the core contribution, is not isolated by any ablation. The weights w_profession = 0.15, w_education = 0.10, w_committee = 0.25, w_legislative_acts = 0.20, w_speech_interventions = 0.25, and w_institutional_role = 0.05 are set empirically and not learned, and the comparison against NotebookLM varies retrieval, reranking, generation, and backbone LLM simultaneously. Consequently the observed outcome differences cannot be attributed to the authority model. The Limitations section states that internal ablations are future work, but a central architectural contribution should be supported by at least an ablation that varies w_a or replaces authority with a content-based baseline. Without that, the claim that authority awareness improves multi-view synthesis is not demonstrated.
  4. [Section 5.2, Tables 1 and 2] The automated metrics in Table 1 are reported as single means over 15 topics without variance, confidence intervals, or tests, so observed differences such as GQ 0.97 vs. 0.95 and QF 1.00 vs. 0.95 may not be statistically meaningful. The human evaluation in Table 2 is more transparent, but the paper acknowledges that none of the differences survive Holm–Bonferroni correction. The abstract and conclusions state that ParliamentRAG 'achieves higher coverage' and 'is consistently preferred on source-related dimensions'; these statements should be qualified as descriptive patterns with small effect sizes rather than significant advantages. The authors should report distributions or per-topic values for the automatic metrics and clarify which claims are inferential versus exploratory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2] There is a typo in the sentence about the authority score: 'reranked considering the authority socre' should read 'authority score'.
  2. [Section 2, related work] The name 'ParliamentaryRAG' is used in the quotation-faithfulness paragraph, while the system is called 'ParliamentRAG' elsewhere; please standardize.
  3. [Figure 1] The example output is shown in English translation; the paper should clarify whether the live system and the evaluated outputs were in Italian and whether the translation was produced by the system or by the authors.
  4. [Section 4.1] The curated keyword-based mapping from queries to parliamentary committees is a free parameter that could bias retrieval; the mapping should be described in more detail or released in full so readers can assess coverage and potential biases.
  5. [Section 5.1] The human evaluation reports N = 67 paired evaluations across six experts with unequal topic coverage, but no inter-annotator agreement or per-evaluator breakdown is provided; this would help assess whether the preference patterns are driven by one or two experts.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Two headline automated metrics are defined by the same mechanism that produces the outputs, making the automated results partly self-confirming; the human evaluation supplies the only independent evidence.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (Automated Evaluation Protocol), Section 5.2 (Table 1), with authority used in Section 4.2 Equations 1-2]
    "Finally, to analyze the behavior of the authority-aware retrieval mechanism, we report the mean authority score (MA) and the corresponding standard deviation (ASD) of the cited speakers under the query-dependent authority model. ... Mean authority of cited speakers is modestly higher for ParliamentRAG (0.53 vs. 0.52)."

    The MA metric is a summary of authority(s,q) from Equation 2, and the same function enters evidence reranking in Equation 1 (wa · authority) and determines the per-group expert whose quotes are cited (Section 4.2, Expert Computation). Therefore the cited speakers' mean authority is optimized by the very function used to score them; a higher MA shows only that the system follows its own scoring rule, not that those speakers are objectively more authoritative. The comparison is further contaminated because the NotebookLM context was built 'with ParliamentRAG retrieval pipeline, including the reranking, which considers the authority score.' This makes the +0.01 delta a compliance check rather than an independent finding.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.3 (Cite stage) and Section 5.1 (Quotation Faithfulness definition)]
    "The language model never generates quotation text: it only inserts placeholders with character offsets that are later replaced with the text from the original speeches. As a result, every quote is directly grounded in source text, preventing hallucinations by construction... Quotation Faithfulness, defined as the fraction of quotations that exactly match substrings of the original parliamentary interventions."

    The Quotation Faithfulness metric is exactly the property that the Cite stage guarantees: offset-based replacement makes every emitted quote a verbatim substring of a transcript. Reporting QF = 1.00 is therefore a restatement of the architecture, not an empirically discovered result. The metric also tests only lexical substring membership, not whether the quote is attributed to the correct speaker or supports the surrounding claim, so it cannot substantiate the broader statement that 'all claims are supported by verifiable evidence.' The paper admits QF = 1.00 'by design,' confirming the tautology.

full rationale

Most of the paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the KG is built from public data, the authority weights are hand-set rather than fitted to the evaluation labels, and the main comparison against NotebookLM includes a blind human evaluation with six domain experts, which is independent of the system's own scoring functions. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present. However, two headline automated results are defined using the same mechanism that produces the outputs. Mean Authority is computed from the same authority(s,q) function used to rerank evidence and select per-group experts, making the reported advantage self-confirming; Quotation Faithfulness is defined as the verbatim-substring property that the Cite stage enforces by construction, so 1.00 is a design invariant rather than a measured achievement. Both are presented as automated evaluation metrics, though the paper is transparent about the architectural guarantees and describes the automated evaluation as 'validation of design compliance.' Group coverage is likewise both a reranking objective (w_v in Equation 1) and an automated metric, but the paper explicitly calls this an architectural guarantee, so we did not count it as a separate circular step. The independent human ratings on Source Relevance, Source Authority, and Source Coverage provide the real evidence for the design's value, which prevents a higher circularity score. The attribution gap (verbatim substring vs. correct speaker/claim) is a correctness risk to be assessed elsewhere, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters are the hand-set weights for reranking and authority; they are disclosed but not learned or ablated, so the authority model's added value rests on an untested assumption. Domain assumptions include embedding similarity as a proxy for expertise and committee membership as a proxy for topical knowledge; both are reasonable but unvalidated. The evaluation assumes that a curated NotebookLM context built from ParliamentRAG retrieval is a fair baseline, which is disclosed but potentially biasing.

free parameters (2)
  • Authority component weights = w_profession=0.15, w_education=0.10, w_committee=0.25, w_legislative_acts=0.20, w_speech_interventions=0.25…
    Hand-set based on expert judgment, not learned or ablated; directly determines which speakers are selected as experts for each group.
  • Reranking weights in Eq. 1 = w_r=0.35, w_d=0.15, w_v=0.20, w_a=0.05, w_sigma=0.25
    Hand-set weights controlling the trade-off between relevance, diversity, coverage, authority, and salience; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between query embeddings and speaker attribute embeddings (profession, education, committees, roles) captures topical expertise.
    Section 4.2 defines the authority score as a sum of these similarities; no independent validation that embeddings encode expertise.
  • domain assumption Committee membership is a strong institutional proxy for domain expertise.
    Section 4.1 privileges chunks from members of a committee mapped to the query via a curated keyword-based mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper The curated keyword mapping from queries to parliamentary committees does not bias retrieval toward specific groups.
    Section 4.1 and footnote 7: the mapping is curated by the authors and is not evaluated for bias or coverage.
  • ad hoc to paper NotebookLM with curated context (150 relevant plus 150 distractor chunks selected by ParliamentRAG retrieval) simulates a fair expert-selected context.
    Section 5.1: the baseline is not tested on full-corpus retrieval, so the comparison only covers generation under evidence supplied by ParliamentRAG.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Who Speaks Matters: Authority-Aware Multi-View RAG over Italian Parliamentary Proceedings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RPMEMXSI

@misc{pith2026260813410,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Who Speaks Matters: Authority-Aware Multi-View RAG over Italian Parliamentary Proceedings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RPMEMXSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13410}
}
read the original abstract

Parliamentary proceedings are a primary record of democratic deliberation, yet their volume and fragmentation make multi-perspective access difficult for citizens, journalists, and researchers. Applying Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to parliamentary transcripts introduces three specific risks: dominance of the most frequent speakers, inability to weight speakers according to topical expertise, and citation misattribution in politically sensitive text. We present ParliamentRAG, a RAG system for the Italian Chamber of Deputies that addresses these risks jointly. Its core contribution is a topic-dependent authority model that estimates each speaker's authority as a function of the current query, combining interpretable components such as profession, education, and previous interventions. Given a user query, the system retrieves relevant speech chunks, identifies topic-relevant experts across parliamentary groups, and generates a summary synthesizing their perspectives, accompanied by supporting quotations. ParliamentRAG is evaluated against Google NotebookLM on 15 policy topics via a two-level protocol combining automated metrics and blind A/B human evaluation by six domain experts. The system achieves higher coverage across political groups (0.97 vs. 0.95), perfect quotation faithfulness (1.00 vs. 0.95), and stronger expert preferences on source-related dimensions, while NotebookLM remains stronger on prose-oriented dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13410 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. illustrates an authority-aware, multi-view summary of Italian parlia￾mentary positions on justice reform, including traceable verbatim quotations. What is the position of the parliamentary groups on the subject: reform of justice? Share You • 09:38 Chamber of Deputies — XIX Legislature Introduction The debate on justice reform was resumed in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, involving 51 members of Chamber in 78 inte… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Knowledge graph schema stored in a single Neo4j instance. (iii) the ability to combine graph traversal, keyword search, and dense retrieval within a unified query infrastructure. During transformation, all entities and relationships from the source ontology are preserved. The graph includes 387 deputies (out of 400 elected members; 13 never intervened in plenary debate and thus have no associated speeches), 64 gover… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Processing Pipeline. Steps 2a and 2b are executed in parallel. coverage, (iii) selects representative experts for each parliamentary group, and (iv) generates a structured multi-view answer with verbatim quotations extracted from source documents. A schema of the pipeline is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    van Aggelen, A., Hollink, L., Kemman, M., Kleppe, M., Beunders, H.: The debates of the european parliament as linked open data. Semant. Web8(2), 271–281 (Jan 2017). https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-160227,https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-160227

    work page doi:10.3233/sw-160227 2017

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the 17th Inter- national Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2025) - Volume 1: KDIR

    Azzopardi, J.: Llms and knowledge discovery in low-resource language parliamen- tary corpora: The pq dashboard case study. In: Proceedings of the 17th Inter- national Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2025) - Volume 1: KDIR. pp. 159–170. SciTePress (2025). https://doi.org/10.5220/0013835100004000...

    work page doi:10.5220/0013835100004000 2025

  3. [3]

    Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval6, 127–256 (01 2012).https://doi.org/10

    Balog, K., Fang, Y., Rijke, M., Serdyukov, P., Si, L.: Expertise retrieval. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval6, 127–256 (01 2012).https://doi.org/10. 1561/1500000024

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    In: Acosta, M., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Maleshkova, M., Pellegrini, T., Sack, H., Sure-Vetter, Y

    Boj¯ ars, U., Dar‘gis, R., Lavrinovičs, U., Paikens, P.: Linkedsaeima: A linked open dataset of latvia’s parliamentary debates. In: Acosta, M., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Maleshkova, M., Pellegrini, T., Sack, H., Sure-Vetter, Y. (eds.) Semantic Sys- tems. The Power of AI and Knowledge Graphs. pp. 50–56. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Brandenberger, L., Minder, J., Salamanca, L., Schlosser, S., Gasser, L., Jung, V., Shariat, K., Balode, M., Schmidt-Rohr, A., Babić, L., Perez-Cruz, F., Schweitzer, F.: Democrasci - a parliamentary knowledge graph (4 legislative periods) (0.9.0) [dataset] (2024).https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13920293, https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.13920293

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13920293 2024

  6. [6]

    Camera dei deputati: Portale dei dati aperti della camera dei deputati.https: //dati.camera.it, accessed: 2026

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the 21st An- nual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    Carbonell, J., Goldstein, J.: The use of mmr, diversity-based reranking for re- ordering documents and producing summaries. In: Proceedings of the 21st An- nual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. p. 335–336. SIGIR ’98, Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA (1998).https://doi.org/10.1...

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning

    Chiang, W.L., Zheng, L., Sheng, Y., Angelopoulos, A.N., Li, T., Li, D., Zhu, B., Zhang, H., Jordan, M.I., Gonzalez, J.E., Stoica, I.: Chatbot arena: an open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning. ICML’24, JMLR.org (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Edge,D.,Trinh,H.,Cheng,N.,Bradley,J.,Chao,A.,Mody,A.,Truitt,S.,Metropoli- tansky, D., Ness, R.O., Larson, J.: From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16130

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Language Resources and Evaluation59(3), 2071–2102 (2025)

    Erjavec, T., Kopp, M., Ljubešić, N., Kuzman, T., Rayson, P., Osenova, P., Ogrod- niczuk, M., Çöltekin, Ç., Koržinek, D., Meden, K., Skubic, J., Rupnik, P., Agnoloni, T., Aires, J., Barkarson, S., Bartolini, R., Bel, N., Calzada Pérez, M., Dar‘gis, R., Diwersy, S., Gavriilidou,...

    2025

  3. [11]

    In: Calzolari, N., Kan, M.Y., Hoste, V., Lenci, A., Sakti, S., Xue, N

    Frasnelli, V., Palmero Aprosio, A.: There’s something new about the Italian par- liament: The IPSA corpus. In: Calzolari, N., Kan, M.Y., Hoste, V., Lenci, A., Sakti, S., Xue, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Confer- ence on Computational Linguistics, Langu...

    2024

  4. [12]

    In: Rogers, A., Boyd-Graber, J., Okazaki, N

    Gao, L., Dai, Z., Pasupat, P., Chen, A., Chaganty, A.T., Fan, Y., Zhao, V., Lao, N., Lee, H., Juan, D.C., Guu, K.: RARR: Researching and revising what language models say, using language models. In: Rogers, A., Boyd-Graber, J., Okazaki, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 61st Annual...

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Hwang, J., Park, J., Park, H., Kim, D., Park, S., Ok, J.: Retrieval-augmented generation with estimation of source reliability (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Semantic Web16(1), SW–243683 (2025)

    Hyvönen, E., Sinikallio, L., Leskinen, P., Drobac, S., Leal, R., La Mela, M., Tuomi- nen, J., Poikkimäki, H., Rantala, H.: Publishing and using parliamentary linked data on the semantic web: Parliamentsampo system for parliament of finland. Semantic Web16(1), SW–243683 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    ACM Computing Surveys55(12), 1–38 (Mar 2023)

    Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y.J., Madotto, A., Fung, P.: Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys55(12), 1–38 (Mar 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1145/3571730

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Kleinberg, J.M.: Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J. ACM 46(5), 604–632 (Sep 1999).https://doi.org/10.1145/324133.324140, https:// doi.org/10.1145/324133.324140

    1999

  9. [17]

    Liu, N.F., Zhang, T., Liang, P.: Evaluating verifiability in generative search engines (2023),https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09848

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Maynez, J., Narayan, S., Bohnet, B., McDonald, R.: On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization (2020),https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00661

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Tritella et al

    Mosbach, S., Lai, J., Rustagi, K., Tran, D.N., Kraft, M., Bindereif, E., Az- zam, M.: Parliamentary debates in the world avatar: A hybrid retrieval- augmented generation system (2025), https://como.ceb.cam.ac.uk/media/ preprints/c4e-preprint-338.pdf, preprint 18 M. Tritella et al

    2025

  12. [20]

    Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., Winograd, T.: The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Tech. rep., Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project (1998),http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.31.1768

    1998

  13. [21]

    Computational Linguistics49(4), 777–840 (Dec 2023).https: //doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00486,https://aclanthology.org/2023.cl-4.2/

    Rashkin, H., Nikolaev, V., Lamm, M., Aroyo, L., Collins, M., Das, D., Petrov, S., Tomar, G.S., Turc, I., Reitter, D.: Measuring attribution in natural language generation models. Computational Linguistics49(4), 777–840 (Dec 2023).https: //doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00486,https://a...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Political Analysis28(1), 112–133 (2020).https://doi

    Rheault,L.,Cochrane,C.:Wordembeddingsfortheanalysisofideologicalplacement in parliamentary corpora. Political Analysis28(1), 112–133 (2020).https://doi. org/10.1017/pan.2019.26

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Swiss Political Science Review30(2), 140–153 (2024).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12590, https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/spsr.12590

    Salamanca, L., Brandenberger, L., Gasser, L., Schlosser, S., Balode, M., Jung, V., Perez-Cruz, F., Schweitzer, F.: Processing large-scale archival records: The case of the swiss parliamentary records. Swiss Political Science Review30(2), 140–153 (2024).https://doi.org/https://...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    ICML’23, JMLR.org (2023)

    Santurkar, S., Durmus, E., Ladhak, F., Lee, C., Liang, P., Hashimoto, T.: Whose opinions do language models reflect? In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning. ICML’23, JMLR.org (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    American Journal of Political Science52(3), 705–722 (2008)

    Slapin,J.B.,Proksch,S.O.:Ascalingmodelforestimatingtime-seriespartypositions from texts. American Journal of Political Science52(3), 705–722 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    Walker, M.A., Litman, D.J., Kamm, C.A., Abella, A.: Paradise: A framework for evaluating spoken dialogue agents (1997),https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/ 9704004

    1997

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Con- ference on Information and Knowledge Management

    Zehlike, M., Bonchi, F., Castillo, C., Hajian, S., Megahed, M., Baeza-Yates, R.: Fa*ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Con- ference on Information and Knowledge Management. p. 1569–1578. CIKM ’17, ACM (Nov 2017).https://doi.org/10.1145/31328...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.