Adjudication

Clinical timelines support treatment-window analysis and leakage-free modeling, but discharge summaries often obscure chronology and structured EHR tables describe only part of the patient course. We present a UID-preserving framework that links each narrative event occurrence to its source span and retains that identity through text-only estimation, structured-evidence retrieval, timestamped source-row grounding, and joint revision. We also present GAVEL, an LLM judge that compares two UID-aligned timelines against the narrative and structured record, to augment prior matching and temporal assessments. Across six open-weight models and 40 mixed-critical-care summaries, the GLM 5.2 multimodal revision, as compared to its text-only variant, improved temporal agreement without reducing event recovery and performed competitively with clinician annotations, while other model revisions showed smaller gains and lower overall performance. Ablations showed that UIDs primarily preserve event retention, whereas source-row linkage supports temporal placement. Blinded human review upheld most GAVEL findings, and controlled adjudication favored multimodal over text-only GLM 5.2 but did not for DeepSeek V3.2. In developing the UID and judge pipeline, we are able to demonstrate 43% increased event recovery, a framework competitive with clinician annotations, and a system with occurrence-level provenance for both reconstruction and evaluation.

Understanding the frequency of factual errors in chatbot-generated text and evaluating systems that detect these errors is critical for determining chatbot safety. Yet factual-error detection is often treated as a single-pass, single-annotator labeling problem. In long-form chatbot responses, factual errors can be subtle and embedded within mostly correct text. We develop a multi-perspective annotation study of medically relevant chatbot responses, combining first-pass annotation, LLM-as-a-Judge (LaJ) candidate discovery, and two forms of adjudication: medical-expert and evidence-based fact-checking. First-pass annotators frequently miss factual errors later validated by adjudicators. LaJ improves candidate discovery, but is insufficient on its own: It misses factual errors that annotators catch. We also find disagreement among adjudicators, suggesting that adjudication over multiple candidate sources can improve benchmark completeness, but does not eliminate the need to apply judgment and expertise. Applied to an existing benchmark, this technique reveals a similar pattern of missing annotations. Together, these results suggest that in the settings examined here, single-pass hallucination benchmarks may achieve scale at the cost of undercounting factual errors. Multi-pass adjudication can improve coverage, but inferences drawn from the benchmarks are still sensitive to the judgment, expertise, and evidence used to determine error presence.

Spoken dialogue state tracking recovers slot-value pairs from speech, where ASR errors concentrate in entity values and persist across turns, making it both a generation and an editing problem. A strong per-turn text editor corrects much of this but, operating on the transcript alone, leaves three recoverable errors: a value predicted inconsistently across turns, an omitted slot, and a value the audio does not support. We present AVERT, which scores each candidate value by combining cross-turn agreement with a trained audio-conditioned verifier and resolves the three error types with three operators, vote, add, and swap, each restricted to the slots where its error is common. On SpokenWOZ, a base speech-LLM reaches 33.04 JGA, a text editor 38.34, and AVERT 40.13, without retraining either. This is in the range of a 1B end-to-end system that consumes the full spoken history (39.32), though AVERT uses two 1B decoders rather than one. The audio verifier contributes a statistically significant gain, and restricting each operator to a selected slot subset matters: removing it lets unrestricted voting overwrite correct categorical values and fall below the editor.

Statutes are increasingly parsed by machines before people read them, and the parsers disagree: on Missouri's statutes, two independently written extractors diverge on numeric-threshold presence at a false-negative rate of 0.43. We ask what formal logic survives such noise. We build a passive survival certificate for the Duquenne-Guigues implication basis of machine-extracted statutory contexts: per-attribute inter-extractor disagreement is measured, replayed against the basis in 1,000 Monte Carlo trials, and an implication is certified only when a one-sided Wilson 95% lower bound on survival reaches 0.95; every certified implication carries premise spans and a minimal counterexample. On 29,365 Missouri sections and 502 Indian central-Act sections, the preregistered held-out gate passes (10 statute families across 7 Titles exact; 16 across 11 with 5% tolerance), yet under one globally deployed error model 93.2% of held-out chapters fall below the informativeness floor, and a 2x2 factorial assigns that to calibration-rate transfer, not selection. The certificate is usable but fragile: deploy it per-chapter-calibrated or error-tolerant. Code, data products, and the audit trail, including one retracted claim, are released.

Social media fact-checking has long been challenged by evidence-level and aggregation-level conflicts, where erroneous evidence mimics authoritative news sources. To capture this challenge and support conflict verification tasks, we present ContraNote, a large-scale real-world dataset curated from X's Community Notes system. It includes 33,686 posts for evaluating evidence-level conflict resolution, and 54,474 instances for evaluating aggregation-level prioritization. Additionally, we propose CoVer, a factual adjudication framework with three-stage pipelines: evidence schema normalization, factual consensus and support verification. This prioritizes evidence over noise to prevent it from compromising the final verdict. Technical evaluations show that CoVer achieves strong performance compared with state-of-the-art baselines across ContraNote (86.0% Acc., 68.0% mac. F1, 64.5 bal. Acc. on Conflict; and 88.5% Acc., 88.5 mac. F1 and 89.2 bal. Acc. on Prioritization), CONFACT-HumC (88.4% Acc.) and CONFACT-ModC (89.4% Acc.).

In 2023, a New York judge sanctioned two attorneys in Mata v. Avianca for filing a brief with hallucinated citations generated by ChatGPT. Such failures are largely caught by database lookups; the harder problem is detecting citations that point to real cases but do not support the propositions for which they are offered -- a failure mode that existing evaluations of LLMs for legal use cases largely overlook. In this paper, we study proposition-level citation support verification through controlled perturbations of real legal citations obtained from two legal corpora, either replacing the cited case or changing only the pinpoint page within the same case. We evaluate fourteen model configurations on the resulting examples. Models catch 93-100% of wrong-case corruptions. They catch only 37-61% of wrong-pinpoint corruptions on court opinions and 52-83% on legal briefs. When models fail to catch wrong-pinpoint corruptions, they accept the citation based on topical overlap rather than page-level support. Scale and extended reasoning narrow the gap but do not close it: GPT-5.4 with high reasoning effort still misses 40% of pinpoint mismatches on court opinions and 18% on briefs. Prompting the model to verify support at the cited page improves recall, but it also raises the false positive rate. Recognizing the right legal topic and verifying support for the cited proposition are distinct capabilities, and current models conflate them.

AI agents can draft claims faster than authors can check whether the cited or retrieved evidence supports them. We study evidence-ledger adjudication: a claim-evidence traceability workflow that pairs each claim with an evidence packet, assigns a support relation, and routes unsupported, contradicted, or mixed-evidence claims back to the author. The empirical core is a 2,335-row blind benchmark built from independent external labels in AVeriTeC, CLIMATE-FEVER, and SciFact. Gold relations and source evidence labels are hidden during prediction and joined only for scoring. On this benchmark, the agent evidence-ledger condition achieves 0.676 relation accuracy and 0.601 macro-F1, compared with 0.383 accuracy and 0.303 macro-F1 for the best non-agent baseline. It also routes 1270/1435 claims whose gold labels indicate contradiction, missing evidence, or mixed evidence, while routing 295/900 supported claims. These results show that evidence-ledger adjudication can turn heterogeneous evidence packets into an auditable traceability layer for AI-assisted writing.

This paper presents a set-theoretic formalization of the classical usuli method of al-Sabr wa al-Taqsim (Examination and Division) for extracting legal causes ('ilal) within closed chapters of jurisprudence. A computational algorithm is introduced that extracts minimal operational rules from a truth table of juristic verdicts. The principal result is that, given a complete truth table for a closed chapter, the algorithm computes the minimal structural generators of the ruling and eliminates all logically redundant attributes. The resulting structures constitute admissible candidate causes for subsequent juristic evaluation. The framework is conditional upon the availability of a finite school-relative concept vocabulary and a complete ruling table for the chapter under investigation.

Prior case retrieval (PCR) aims to identify the precedent cases relevant to the facts of a query case. Incoming citation context, the text with which later cases characterize a case when citing it, is a powerful relevance signal, yet it is typically evaluated without a temporal constraint, so the retriever is credited with citations made after the query. We introduce a temporally fenced retriever with no learned parameters that augments BM25 with incoming citation context restricted to citations predating the query, together with a temporal-admission decomposition that quantifies the phantom fraction: the share of a citation-context gain attributable to citations not known to predate the query. Experiments span two jurisdictions, U.S. federal (CLERC) and European (ECtHR-PCR) case law. On ECtHR-PCR, without any training, the fenced retriever outperforms a strong degree-controlled baseline across the full recall ladder, and a temporal-admission decomposition attributes 14.9% (validation) of an unfenced citation-context gain over BM25 to citations not known to predate the query. Citation-context retrieval must therefore be temporally fenced and degree-controlled before its reported gains can be interpreted.

As LLMs are increasingly deployed as autonomous adjudicators in semi-open textual game environments, robust rule adherence becomes critical when user intent conflicts with system rules. However, these models are trained to be helpful and compliant, leaving them vulnerable to a class of attacks we term \textit{Rhetorical Injection}, where adversarial users exploit narrative framing techniques such as pseudo-logical reasoning and authoritative coercion to bypass adjudication logic. We present CoC-Seduce, a multi-agent adversarial benchmark built on Tabletop Role-Playing Game (TRPG) mechanics, an ideal instantiation of semi-open environments where rules are explicit for adjudication, yet interaction remains entirely in natural language. Three frontier models, i.e., GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.5 Flash, serve as adversarial generators producing 5,376 samples across 4 world settings and 16 skill categories. We then benchmark 20 target adjudicators against this corpus. Evaluation across 20 models reveals that neither model scale nor explicit reasoning mechanisms reliably confer adjudication robustness, with \textsc{Pseudo-Logic} emerging as the dominant attack vector and cross-cultural settings exposing systematic knowledge gaps across all evaluated families. Project page: https://github.com/answerrtx/CoC-Seduce

Legal outcome prediction must disentangle objective case facts from adjudicative context. Merit-based rulings rely on factual evidence while technical disposals may hinge on judicial discretion. We propose a Judge-Aware Gated Multi-Task Learning architecture that explicitly models this distinction. We introduce a fine-grained outcome taxonomy to supervise the encoder, enforcing a structural regularization that disentangles distinct semantic pathways. This granular legal curriculum enables our Gated Fusion mechanism to dynamically modulate reliance on judge identity. We evaluate our approach on 13,937 UK Employment Tribunal decisions. We benchmark our design against supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of a Gemma-4 26B-A4B backbone, in which judge identity and the taxonomy are injected as prompt tokens or autoregressive output targets. The two contextual signals compose only weakly when forced through a single autoregressive channel. In contrast, coupling a LoRA-adapted Gemma-4 encoder with our gated architecture defines a new state of the art on this benchmark while requiring an order of magnitude fewer trainable parameters than the generative SFT baselines, with gains concentrated on the most ambiguous and rarest outcome classes. Beyond accuracy, the architecture is interpretable; learned judge embeddings and calibration profiles localize the cases where adjudicative context drives the prediction. These results indicate that, for identity-conditioned classification of legal outcomes, the choice of conditioning interface dominates scale: differentiable structured composition yields more accurate, more parameter-efficient models than prompt-based composition over a substantially larger backbone.

Pre-submission hardening of human-authored LaTeX computer science papers differs from drafting assistance because it requires adversarial whole-paper review, explicit no-fix outcomes, and bounded artifact-safe revision. Existing writing assistants, critique generators, and judge-centered loops lack durable issue identity across rounds, deterministic routing from critique to adjudication, and manuscript control that can reject invalid concerns or defer author-dependent ones. We present PaperJury, a closed-loop review-verdict-revise-verify system built on a deterministic-versus-semantic split: deterministic orchestration manages decomposition, a frozen claim spine, a durable ledger, routing, stopping, and exact-once patch application, while semantic agents are limited to bounded review, judgment, and repair. PaperJury combines bounded holistic review, contestability-based routing, a due-process trial, and risk-proportional guard chains for anchor-bounded edits, yielding terminal outcomes of invalid-drop, valid-fixable, and author-required. In a two-arm expert-review evaluation on held-out Vision, natural language processing, and machine learning papers against four baselines, we assess issue quality, verdict and routing quality, edit safety, convergence behavior, and cost, supporting the thesis that load-bearing safety and completion logic should reside in deterministic orchestration rather than model discretion. PaperJury is available at https://github.com/u7079256/paperjury.

Single-score translation metrics can conflate legitimate variation with error, a problem especially acute for classical languages where multiple defensible English renderings of the same passage coexist. We audit Pali-to-English output from four flagship large language models (LLMs): GPT-5.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok 4.3, on 1,700 passages from the Pali Canon, using three established human translations by Bhikkhu Sujato, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi as a local reference envelope rather than a single gold standard. Each candidate's normalized embedding drift from the reference centroid serves as a triage signal, not an error label; the 1,203 candidates above a 1.5 drift threshold are then adjudicated by a blinded three-model LLM judge panel, calibrated against a 300-instance author-adjudicated validation set. Two results stand out. First, drift predicts severity rather than error per se: the major-error rate among adjudicated high-drift candidates rose monotonically from 7.9% in the 1.5-2.0 band to 51.6% above 3.0, while approximately 80% of 1.5-2.0 outliers were judged valid translation variations. Second, model differences were clearest in the high-drift tail: GPT-5.5 had the lowest adjudicated high-drift major-error rate, with confidence intervals overlapping those of Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro; Grok 4.3 had both the largest outlier volume and the highest tail major-error rate (27.6% overall, 74.4% above drift 3.0). The dominant major-error categories (e.g. omission or truncation, doctrinal term errors) are precisely the failures most likely to mislead readers of doctrinal text. The contribution is a reusable audit design for classical-to-modern translation: define a local reference envelope from multiple human translators, use embedding drift to prioritize review, and adjudicate the flagged tail rather than treating outlier status as error.

Safety evaluations of language models often treat serving configuration as fixed background infrastructure, but batch condition is an untested treatment variable whenever the same prompt may be evaluated alone, in a synchronized batch, or inside a continuous-batching scheduler. We synthesize four artifact-backed studies into a paired testing protocol: Study A combines local discovery, scorer-corrected adjudication, and true-batching confirmation; Study B tests cross-model generalization; Study C tests continuous-batch composition; and Study D runs a batch-invariant-kernel ablation. The local test finds safety-label changes more often than capability-label changes (0.51% vs. 0.14%), but adjudication of 63 candidate rows leaves only 17 genuine behavioral flips, implying a corrected full-set rate of 0.16%. The 15-model extension finds no detectable universal safety-over-capability skew: flips are near parity (0.94x), alignment type has no detectable association ($p=0.942$, $η^2=0.033$), and output instability is the strongest tested fragility screen ($r=0.909$, bootstrap 95% CI [0.65, 0.97]). In the targeted kernel ablation, standard vLLM reproduces 22/55 label flips on current score-flip candidates, while enabling VLLM_BATCH_INVARIANT=1 reduces the same test to 0/55 flips; the composition test separately finds no aggregate effect at 4.7pp sensitivity. The testing recommendation is exact-stack validation: evaluate refusal at the served batch setting, pair safety prompts with capability controls, and report low-rate directional flips separately from aggregate null effects.

Half a billion citation edges extracted from 100.7 million Ukrainian court decisions reveal that judicial citation structure encodes legal domain boundaries without supervision and predicts future legislative importance with near-perfect accuracy. We construct the first large-scale citation graph from the complete EDRSR registry (99.5 million full texts, 1.1 TB), extracting 502 million citation links across six types via regex on commodity hardware in approximately 5 hours, with precision of 1.00 on a 200-decision validation sample (95% Wilson CI: [0.982, 1.000]). Three principal findings emerge. (1) The degree distribution follows a power law (alpha = 1.57 +/- 0.008), placing the Ukrainian court network near the EU Court of Justice and below the US Supreme Court, with hub articles cited by millions of decisions. (2) Louvain community detection on the co-citation projection recovers legal domain boundaries (civil, criminal, administrative, commercial) with modularity Q = 0.44-0.55 and temporal stability (NMI = 0.83-0.86 across periods), constituting an automatically constructed legal ontology grounded in judicial practice. (3) Citation features predict top-1000 articles with AUC = 0.9984, substantially outperforming a naive frequency baseline (P@1000 = 0.655); temporal dynamics detect legislative regime changes as phase transitions and the 2022 invasion as a citation entropy spike (H: 11.02 -> 13.49) with emergent wartime legislation nodes. The citation-derived ontology is operationalized as the domain layer of a workflow memory system for LLM-assisted legal analysis, connecting to the ontology-controlled paradigm. The extraction pipeline, analysis code, and aggregated statistics are released as open data.

Large language models are increasingly used in scientific writing, yet they can fabricate citation-shaped references that appear plausible but fail bibliographic verification. Existing detectors often reduce verification to binary found/not-found decisions and rely on brittle parsing or incomplete retrieval, offering little field-level signal to auditors. We reframe citation hallucination detection as taxonomy-aligned field-level adjudication and introduce a 12-code taxonomy spanning Real, Potential, and Hallucinated citations. Based on this taxonomy, we build CiteTracer, a cascading multi-agent detector that extracts structured citations from PDF and BibTeX, retrieves evidence through cache lookup, URL fetch, scholar connectors, and web search, applies deterministic field matching, and routes ambiguous cases to class-specialist judgers. We release a benchmark of 2,450 synthetic citations built from real seeds with controlled LLM mutations, paired with 957 real-world fabricated citations drawn from ICLR 2026 and an anonymous conference desk-rejected submissions. CiteTracer reaches 97.1% accuracy on the synthetic benchmark, with class-level F1 scores of 97.0, 95.8, and 98.5 for Real, Potential, and Hallucinated, respectively, and detects 97.1% of fabrications on the real-world set without abstaining. Code: https://github.com/aaFrostnova/CiteTracer.

Legal texts often contain computational legal clauses--provisions whose understanding requires complex logic. While frontier Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) can describe such clauses, building production-ready systems is limited by reasoning errors and the high cost of inference. We propose Amortized Intelligence, a neuro-symbolic approach where we use an LLM once to translate a legal text into Deterministic Autonomous Contract Language (DACL): a typed graph intermediate representation. Adjudication then relies on deterministic graph executions with a visually auditable trace. In comparison against runtime LRM baselines (including GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro), our DACL-based Agent achieves near-perfect consistency and mitigates the "reasoning cliff" observed in probabilistic models. The system reduces compute costs by over 90% in high-volume workflows while satisfying the strict auditability requirements of legal adjudication.

Legal consultation is inherently iterative: before giving advice, a system must identify relevant legal elements, gather missing facts and authorities, and determine whether the current evidence is sufficient. Existing retrieval-augmented legal agents often use fixed retrieval budgets or single-shot search, making them insensitive to the evolving coverage state of a consultation. This paper introduces a coverage-driven retrieval-control framework for multi-turn legal consultation. The framework maintains a structured map over user facts, legal elements, retrieval goals, and retrieved evidence, and uses element coverage, evidence validity coverage, and marginal retrieval gain to decide whether to retrieve, clarify, reformulate, or stop. On a 50-case synthetic Chinese labor-law consultation pilot with fixed legal-element schemas, a DeepSeek V4-Pro action-selection variant achieves full measured element coverage under the pilot metric while requiring 3.4 retrieval rounds and 7.1 evidence snippets on average. Diagnostic analyses show that model-backed action selection recovers rule-policy failure cases with a small retrieval-budget increase, while forced continuation mainly increases token and latency costs. These results suggest that legal-element coverage is a useful control signal for adaptive legal retrieval, while remaining bounded to retrieval-control behavior under synthetic fixed-schema conditions rather than deployment-level legal correctness.

Modern phishing campaigns increasingly evade snapshot-based URL classifiers using interaction gates (e.g., checkbox/slider challenges), delayed content rendering, and logo-less credential harvesters. This shifts URL triage from static classification toward an interactive forensics task: an analyst must actively navigate the page while isolating themselves from potential runtime exploits. We present TraceScope, a decoupled triage pipeline that operationalizes this workflow at scale. To prevent the observer effect and ensure safety, a sandboxed operator agent drives a real GUI browser guided by visual motivation to elicit page behavior, freezing the session into an immutable evidence bundle. Separately, an adjudicator agent circumvents LLM context limitations by querying evidence on demand to verify a MITRE ATT&CK checklist, and generates an audit-ready report with extracted indicators of compromise (IOCs) and a final verdict. Evaluated on 708 reachable URLs from existing dataset (241 verified phishing from PhishTank and 467 benign from Tranco-derived crawling), TraceScope achieves 0.94 precision and 0.78 recall, substantially improving recall over three prior visual/reference-based classifiers while producing reproducible, analyst-grade evidence suitable for review. More importantly, we manually curated a dataset of real-world phishing emails to evaluate our system in a practical setting. Our evaluation reveals that TraceScope demonstrates superior performance in a real-world scenario as well, successfully detecting sophisticated phishing attempts that current state-of-the-art defenses fail to identify.

A well-known limitation of AI systems is presumptuousness: the tendency of AI systems to provide confident answers when information may be lacking. This challenge is particularly acute in legal applications, where a core task for attorneys, judges, and administrators is to determine whether evidence is sufficient to reach a conclusion. We study this problem in the important setting of unemployment insurance adjudication, which has seen rapid integration of AI systems and where the question of additional fact-finding poses the most significant bottleneck for a system that affects millions of applicants annually. First, through a collaboration with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, we secure rare access to official training materials and guidance to design a novel benchmark that systematically varies in information completeness. Second, we evaluate four leading AI platforms and show that standard RAG-based approaches achieve an average of only 15% accuracy when information is insufficient. Third, advanced prompting methods improve accuracy on inconclusive cases but over-correct, withholding decisions even on clear cases. Fourth, we introduce a structured framework requiring explicit identification of missing information before any determination (SPEC, Structured Prompting for Evidence Checklists). SPEC achieves 89% overall accuracy, while appropriately deferring when evidence is insufficient -- demonstrating that presumptuousness in legal AI is systematic but addressable, and that doing so is a necessary step towards systems that reliably support, rather than supplant, human judgment wherever decisions must await sufficient evidence.

Although some existing image manipulation localization (IML) methods incorporate authenticity-related supervision, this information is typically utilized merely as an auxiliary training signal to enhance the model's sensitivity to manipulation artifacts, rather than being explicitly modeled as localization evidence opposing the manipulated regions. Consequently, when manipulation traces are subtle or degraded by post-processing and noise, these methods struggle to explicitly compare manipulated and authentic evidence, resulting in unreliable predictions in ambiguous areas. To address these issues, we propose a courtroom-style adjudication framework that regards IML task as the confrontation of evidence followed by judgment. The framework comprises a prosecution stream, a defense stream, and a judge model. We first build a dual-hypothesis segmentation architecture on a shared multi-scale encoder, in which the prosecution stream asserts manipulation and the defense stream asserts authenticity. Guided by edge priors, it produces evidence for manipulated and authentic regions through cascaded multi-level fusion, bidirectional disagreement suppression, and dynamic debate refinement. We further develop a reinforcement learning judge model that performs strategic re-inference and refinement on uncertain regions, yielding a manipulated-region mask. The judge model is trained with advantage-based rewards and a soft-IoU objective, and reliability is calibrated via entropy and cross-hypothesis consistency. Experimental results show that our model achieves superior average performance compared with SOTA IML methods.