LegalCiteTrust: Benchmarking Citation Trustworthiness in Chinese Long-Form Legal Research Reports

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20872v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 02:50:35 GMT
• Title: LegalCiteTrust: Benchmarking Citation Trustworthiness in Chinese Long-Form Legal Research Reports
• Abstract summary: LegalCiteTrust is a benchmark for evaluating citation trustworthiness in Chinese long-form legal research reports.<n>It contains 72 densely annotated report-level tasks and evaluates reports along three dimensions: Coverage, Support, and Citation Trustworthiness.<n>E/F/A-based revision improves Trust and Final score more clearly than existence-only filtering.
• Score: 10.617230636467339
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Long-form legal research reports increasingly rely on LLMs and agentic research systems, but their reliability depends not only on answering the task, but also on whether cited legal authorities are trustworthy. A citation can be risky even when it points to a real source: the report may omit limiting conditions, misdescribe the authority, or use it to support a stronger claim than the source allows. We introduce LegalCiteTrust, a benchmark for evaluating citation trustworthiness in Chinese long-form legal research reports. It contains 72 densely annotated report-level tasks and evaluates reports along three dimensions: Coverage, Support, and Citation Trustworthiness. Citation Trustworthiness is operationalized through citation-level Existence, Fidelity, and Applicability (E/F/A). Experiments on general-purpose LLMs, deep-research systems, and legal-specific systems show that task completion, evidence richness, citation density, and citation reliability expose different system behaviors. Retrieval tools can improve evidence support without reliably improving the Trust score, while E/F/A-based revision improves Trust and Final score more clearly than existence-only filtering. These results suggest that trustworthy legal research generation requires citation-aware evidence governance after retrieval: systems must not only retrieve legal authorities, but also select, describe, and apply them reliably.

Related papers

• Explicit Evidence Grounding via Structured Inline Citation Generation [22.27784103991804]
  FullCite is a framework that generates structured inline citations linking each claim to both its source document and supporting evidence.<n>We assess citation quality and faithfulness along three dimensions: document-level correctness, evidence span identification, and claim-citation faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T10:42:10Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• Cited but Not Verified: Parsing and Evaluating Source Attribution in LLM Deep Research Agents [0.18762753243053634]
  Large language models (LLMs) power deep research agents that synthesize information from hundreds of web sources into cited reports.<n>Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking bias, or employ retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that does not validate source accessibility, relevance or factual consistency.<n>We introduce the first source attribution evaluation framework that uses a reproducible AST rubric to extract and evaluate inline citations at scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T17:46:45Z)
• FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Reviews with Literature Positioning and Execution-Based Claim Verification [57.196748998757954]
  We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification.<n>Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository.<n>It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T11:45:22Z)
• CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era [51.63024682584688]
  Large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications.<n>We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing.<n>Our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T19:17:39Z)
• DeepTRACE: Auditing Deep Research AI Systems for Tracking Reliability Across Citations and Evidence [50.97612134791782]
  Generative search engines and deep research LLM agents promise trustworthy, source-grounded synthesis, yet users regularly encounter overconfidence, weak sourcing, and confusing citation practices.<n>We introduce DeepTRACE, a novel sociotechnically grounded audit framework that turns prior community-identified failure cases into eight measurable dimensions spanning answer text, sources, and citations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T00:32:38Z)
• The Noisy Path from Source to Citation: Measuring How Scholars Engage with Past Research [20.649638393774048]
  We introduce a computational pipeline to quantify citation fidelity at scale.<n>Using full texts of papers, the pipeline identifies citations in citing papers and the corresponding claims in cited papers.<n>Using a quasi-experiment, we establish the "telephone effect" - when citing papers have low fidelity to the original claim, future papers that cite the citing paper and the original have lower fidelity to the original.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T22:47:03Z)
• ALiiCE: Evaluating Positional Fine-grained Citation Generation [54.19617927314975]
  We propose ALiiCE, the first automatic evaluation framework for fine-grained citation generation. Our framework first parses the sentence claim into atomic claims via dependency analysis and then calculates citation quality at the atomic claim level. We evaluate the positional fine-grained citation generation performance of several Large Language Models on two long-form QA datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T09:16:14Z)
• Verifiable by Design: Aligning Language Models to Quote from Pre-Training Data [48.409306245463]
  We develop models that quote verbatim statements from trusted sources in their pre-training data.<n>The core of Quote-Tuning is a fast membership inference function that efficiently verifies text against trusted corpora.<n> Experiments show that Quote-Tuning significantly increases verbatim quotes from high-quality documents by up to 130% relative to base models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-05T02:27:09Z)

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.