[Submitted on 3 Oct 2026]
Title:Verdicts Without Annotated Evidence: Rejection Sampling or Label-Only Post-Training for Evidence Recovery?
View a PDF of the paper titled Verdicts Without Annotated Evidence: Rejection Sampling or Label-Only Post-Training for Evidence Recovery?, by Nishanth Nayakanti and 3 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:In many review workflows the verdict is the only thing retained. The passages behind it are not marked, because that annotation costs far more than recording the decision. We measure how much of that evidence a small language model can recover when it is post-trained on the verdicts alone, with no human evidence labels at any stage. On ContractNLI the human evidence spans are held out until evaluation. Matching the recorded verdict and agreeing with those spans are not the same thing: across six systems the two scores are only weakly related and rank the systems differently, so accuracy is a poor guide when the citations have to be reviewable. Label-only training on the bare verdict reaches accuracy 0.896 and span F1 0.564. Rejection sampling, which keeps a generated trace only when its verdict matches the record and then picks one by an automatic source-grounding score, reaches 0.797 and 0.556, against 0.747 and 0.493 before training. Verbatim citation rises from 0.597 to 0.729 under label-only training and to 0.701 under rejection sampling. One seed on one corpus cannot say which method is better, but both improve the evidence without anyone annotating it.
Comments: 16 pages, 5 figures
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.06962 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.06962v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.06962
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Prasang Gupta [view email] [v1] Sat, 3 Oct 2026 17:01:42 UTC (204 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled Verdicts Without Annotated Evidence: Rejection Sampling or Label-Only Post-Training for Evidence Recovery?, by Nishanth Nayakanti and 3 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
TeX Source
view license
Additional Features
Audio Summary
Current browse context:
cs.CL
new | recent | 2026-10
Change to browse by:
cs cs.AI
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Loading...
Data provided by:
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)