PAKTON: A Multi-Agent Framework for Question Answering in Long Legal Agreements

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00608v1
• Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 15:38:21 GMT
• Title: PAKTON: A Multi-Agent Framework for Question Answering in Long Legal Agreements
• Authors: Petros Raptopoulos, Giorgos Filandrianos, Maria Lymperaiou, Giorgos Stamou,
• Abstract summary: We introduce PAKTON: a fully open-source, end-to-end, multi-agent framework with plug-and-play capabilities.<n>PAKTON is designed to handle the complexities of contract analysis through collaborative agent and a novel retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) component.<n>Experiments demonstrate that PAKTON outperforms both general-purpose and pretrained models in predictive accuracy, retrieval performance, explainability, completeness, and grounded justifications.
• Score: 1.9939549451457024
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Contract review is a complex and time-intensive task that typically demands specialized legal expertise, rendering it largely inaccessible to non-experts. Moreover, legal interpretation is rarely straightforward-ambiguity is pervasive, and judgments often hinge on subjective assessments. Compounding these challenges, contracts are usually confidential, restricting their use with proprietary models and necessitating reliance on open-source alternatives. To address these challenges, we introduce PAKTON: a fully open-source, end-to-end, multi-agent framework with plug-and-play capabilities. PAKTON is designed to handle the complexities of contract analysis through collaborative agent workflows and a novel retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) component, enabling automated legal document review that is more accessible, adaptable, and privacy-preserving. Experiments demonstrate that PAKTON outperforms both general-purpose and pretrained models in predictive accuracy, retrieval performance, explainability, completeness, and grounded justifications as evaluated through a human study and validated with automated metrics.

Related papers

• Visual Document Understanding and Question Answering: A Multi-Agent Collaboration Framework with Test-Time Scaling [83.78874399606379]
  We propose MACT, a Multi-Agent Collaboration framework with Test-Time scaling.<n>It comprises four distinct small-scale agents, with clearly defined roles and effective collaboration.<n>It shows superior performance with a smaller parameter scale without sacrificing the ability of general and mathematical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T12:52:09Z)
• AI Agents-as-Judge: Automated Assessment of Accuracy, Consistency, Completeness and Clarity for Enterprise Documents [0.0]
  This study presents a modular, multi-agent system for the automated review of highly structured enterprise business documents using AI agents.<n>It uses modern orchestration tools such as LangChain, CrewAI, TruLens, and Guidance to enable section-by-section evaluation of documents.<n>It achieves 99% information consistency (vs. 92% for humans), halving error and bias rates, and reducing average review time from 30 to 2.5 minutes per document.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T17:46:15Z)
• MA-RAG: Multi-Agent Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Collaborative Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [43.66966457772646]
  MA-RAG orchestrates a collaborative set of specialized AI agents to tackle each stage of the RAG pipeline with task-aware reasoning.<n>Our design allows fine-grained control over information flow without any model fine-tuning.<n>This modular and reasoning-driven architecture enables MA-RAG to deliver robust, interpretable results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T15:05:18Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• Complexity Experts are Task-Discriminative Learners for Any Image Restoration [80.46313715427928]
  We introduce complexity experts" -- flexible expert blocks with varying computational complexity and receptive fields.<n>This preference effectively drives task-specific allocation, assigning tasks to experts with the appropriate complexity.<n>The proposed MoCE-IR model outperforms state-of-the-art methods, affirming its efficiency and practical applicability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T15:58:07Z)
• The Ability of Large Language Models to Evaluate Constraint-satisfaction in Agent Responses to Open-ended Requests [0.6249768559720121]
  We develop and release a novel Arithmetic Constraint-Satisfaction (ACS) benchmarking dataset. This dataset consists of complex user requests with corresponding constraints, agent responses and human labels indicating each constraint's satisfaction level in the response. We show that most models still have a significant headroom for improvement, and that errors primarily stem from reasoning issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T09:27:42Z)
• Towards Human-Level Understanding of Complex Process Engineering Schematics: A Pedagogical, Introspective Multi-Agent Framework for Open-Domain Question Answering [0.0]
  In the chemical and process industries, Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) and Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) are critical for design, construction, and maintenance. Recent advancements in Generative AI have shown promise in understanding and interpreting process diagrams for Visual Question Answering (VQA) We propose a secure, on-premises enterprise solution using a hierarchical, multi-agent Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T19:34:04Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Legal Case Retrieval [16.29803062332164]
  We propose a few-shot approach where large language models assist in generating expert-aligned relevance judgments.<n>The proposed approach decomposes the judgment process into several stages, mimicking the workflow of human annotators.<n>It also ensures interpretable data labeling, providing transparency and clarity in the relevance assessment process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T09:46:56Z)
• From Chaos to Clarity: Claim Normalization to Empower Fact-Checking [57.024192702939736]
  Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm) aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various evaluation measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T16:07:06Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• Towards Collaborative Question Answering: A Preliminary Study [63.91687114660126]
  We propose CollabQA, a novel QA task in which several expert agents coordinated by a moderator work together to answer questions that cannot be answered with any single agent alone. We make a synthetic dataset of a large knowledge graph that can be distributed to experts. We show that the problem can be challenging without introducing prior to the collaboration structure, unless experts are perfect and uniform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-24T14:27:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.