Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Do Small Models Use the Law You Give Them? Measuring Context Use on a Bilingual Bangladesh Legal Benchmark

Moniruzzaman Mahadi, Abrar Mohammed Tanzim Alam, Sayma Siddika Monalisa, Mir Mohammad Asif Abdullah +2 more

Published

Aug 31, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Aug 31, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context. We study this distinction in bilingual Bangladeshi legal QA, where observed errors can arise from answer scoring, retrieval, or failure to use relevant law. We construct a hierarchy-preserving statutory corpus, 2,165 reviewed bilingual fine-tuning examples, and a 150-item supplied-law control. We evaluate six instruction-tuned models: Llama-3.2-1B, Llama-3.2-3B, Qwen3.5-0.8B, Qwen3.5-2B, Qwen3.5-4B, and Gemma-4-E2B, with three LoRA seeds per model. To separate effects, we combine constrained option-letter scoring, cyclic option rotation, and controlled removal of the governing provision. On 398 Bar Council outputs, an exact-line parser attributes an accuracy gain of 50.0\% to the Qwen3.5-2B seed-42 adapter, whereas option scoring yields only $3.0\%$. For Gemma-4-E2B, the two scoring methods favor different systems. When the governing provision is guaranteed to be present, five of six reference models improve by $14.7\%-19.3\%$ under the four-order criterion. Removing that provision reduces accuracy by $8.0\%-15.3\%$ for models and by $13.8\%-14.9\%$ points for their adapters. However, difference-in differences estimates show no increase in reliance on the governing provision after fine-tuning. Results show that legal adaptation claims require separating scorer, retriever, and model effects. Our Code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/bangladesh-legal-qa-11E3

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

accuracy
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Coding
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context.
  • We study this distinction in bilingual Bangladeshi legal QA, where observed errors can arise from answer scoring, retrieval, or failure to use relevant law.
  • We construct a hierarchy-preserving statutory corpus, 2,165 reviewed bilingual fine-tuning examples, and a 150-item supplied-law control.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Accuracy

Contribution summary

  • Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context.
  • We evaluate six instruction-tuned models: Llama-3.2-1B, Llama-3.2-3B, Qwen3.5-0.8B, Qwen3.5-2B, Qwen3.5-4B, and Gemma-4-E2B, with three LoRA seeds per model.
  • On 398 Bar Council outputs, an exact-line parser attributes an accuracy gain of 50.0\% to the Qwen3.5-2B seed-42 adapter, whereas option scoring yields only 3.0\%.

Why it matters for eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy