# GANDR: Claim Auditing for Verifiable Legal Answer Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10293 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.10293/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 26 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04906/) (2020)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Passage Re-ranking with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.04085/) (2019)
- [Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14627/) (2023)
- [LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11462/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11495/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.09848/) (2023)
- [RAGTruth: A Hallucination Corpus for Developing Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00396/) (2023)
- [Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20362/) (2024)
- [Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.01301/) (2024)
- [LegalBench-RAG: A Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in the Legal Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10343/) (2024)
- [Legal Prompting: Teaching a Language Model to Think Like a Lawyer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.01326/) (2022)
- [Nemotron-Cascade 2: Post-Training LLMs with Cascade RL and Multi-Domain On-Policy Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.19220/) (2026)
- [AttributionBench: How Hard is Automatic Attribution Evaluation?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15089/) (2024)
- [Towards Verifiable Generation: A Benchmark for Knowledge-aware Language Model Attribution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05634/) (2023)
- [CitaLaw: Enhancing LLM with Citations in Legal Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14556/) (2024)
- [From "Thinking" to "Justifying": Aligning High-Stakes Explainability with Professional Communication Standards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07233/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the source the system cites. Current grounded-generation pipelines score the answer as a whole, so a correct conclusion can rest on fabricated or loosely matched citations and still score well. Closing this gap requires both a system built for per-claim verification and an evaluation that measures it. We introduce GANDR (Grounded ANswer DRafter), a two-agent system in which a Drafter writes an answer in a structured legal-reasoning format and a separate Critic, with the same view as a human verifier, audits each claim against its cited source and emits a per-claim audit trace on every round. We pair it with a strict correctness criterion requiring every citation to resolve to a passage the retriever returned. On a 185-item legal benchmark where all six systems share one backbone, one retrieval surface, and one citation instruction, GANDR ranks first on every primary metric, reaching 70.8% strict accuracy and leading the strongest baseline by 11.3 points (p<0.01). Reverting the protocol-anchored commit rule lowers strict accuracy by 22.7 points, and the strict lead stays positive on three further backbones, at +3.2 to +6.5 points. This lead traces to the Drafter configuration and the protocol-anchored commit, not to rewriting. Against two law-trained annotators the audit flags under-supported claims at F1 0.84 as a binary detector, while its four-way verdict labels agree only weakly and are advisory. Code is available upon request.