AI 服務暫時不可用，以下為來源正文，待恢復後補全翻譯。
[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?)