arXiv subjects

Surya Saka

Publications and source records attributed to Surya Saka.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

When Can a Machine Trust a Statute? A Survival Certificate for Machine-Extracted Legal Logic

Statutes are increasingly parsed by machines before people read them, and the parsers disagree: on Missouri's statutes, two independently written extractors diverge on numeric-threshold presence at a false-negative rate of 0.43. We ask what formal logic survives such noise. We build a passive survival certificate for the Duquenne-Guigues implication basis of machine-extracted statutory contexts: per-attribute inter-extractor disagreement is measured, replayed against the basis in 1,000 Monte Carlo trials, and an implication is certified only when a one-sided Wilson 95% lower bound on survival reaches 0.95; every certified implication carries premise spans and a minimal counterexample. On 29,365 Missouri sections and 502 Indian central-Act sections, the preregistered held-out gate passes (10 statute families across 7 Titles exact; 16 across 11 with 5% tolerance), yet under one globally deployed error model 93.2% of held-out chapters fall below the informativeness floor, and a 2x2 factorial assigns that to calibration-rate transfer, not selection. The certificate is usable but fragile: deploy it per-chapter-calibrated or error-tolerant. Code, data products, and the audit trail, including one retracted claim, are released.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

GreenLeaf Law Embed Tiny: A Compact Embedding Model for Legal Domain Retrieval

We present GreenLeaf Law Embed Tiny, a 0.6B parameter embedding model for legal domain retrieval. GreenLeaf-Tiny achieves 75.11% on the Massive Legal Embedding Benchmark (MLEB) and 64.38% on MTEB(Law, v1),demonstrating competitive performance among models under 1B parameters. Our approach combines a two-stage training pipeline that first distills knowledge from a larger teacher model into a compact student architecture, then applies domain-specific fine-tuning with hard negative mining; a carefully curated dataset of 3.4 million query-passage pairs, including 150,000 human-curated samples across diverse legal jurisdictions; and an efficient inference architecture supporting multiple quantization levels (BF16, INT8, binary) enabling deployment in resource-constrained environments. We provide detailed analysis of our training methodology, architectural choices, and comprehensive evaluation across legal retrieval tasks. Our results demonstrate that domain-specific training with high-quality data can improve performance for specialized domain applications

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Calibrated Trust, Not Sharper Prediction: An Empirical Test of Uncertainty Fusion

A recurring proposal in legal AI is to improve case-outcome prediction by fusing uncertainty tools (evidence graphs with belief propagation, sequential Bayesian odds updating, Dempster-Shafer combination, and conformal prediction) into one pipeline. We test this on 1,000 real European Court of Human Rights cases from LexGLUE and FairLex, predicting whether the Court found a Convention violation from the case's fact paragraphs. We compare three families across two frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5) as per-fact evidence estimators: (A) the raw LLM, (B) the LLM routed through the fusion pipeline, and (C) a term-frequency baseline through the same pipeline. Across roughly 4,750 tests we find: (1) on discrimination (AUROC around 0.83) the pipeline yields no improvement over either the raw LLM or the baseline; a frontier LLM used directly is the strongest single discriminator. (2) Naively composing an LLM with Bayesian-odds and Dempster-Shafer fusion more than doubles calibration error (ECE from about 0.16 to 0.46) via a prior-mismatch mechanism that replicates across both models. (3) Dempster-Shafer fusion is actively unsafe on long chains, committing confidently to wrong labels at below-chance accuracy; we recommend removing it. (4) The pipeline's genuine value is operational: routed through a conformal selective-prediction layer, the system decides which cases to automate and which to escalate. After removing Dempster-Shafer, recalibrating, and applying class-conditional risk control on the full 1,000-case set, the tuned engine auto-clears at 96.8 percent accuracy with 0.5 percent errors escaping and 96.3 percent caught for review, versus 85.9 / 3.8 / 72.1 for an untuned baseline. The contribution of such pipelines in law is calibrated trust, not sharper prediction.

cs.LG↗