Spaces:
Runtime error
Runtime error
| # 15-Minute Presentation Outline | |
| ## Slide 1 - Title | |
| Improving Turkish Legal Question Answering with an Optimized RAG Pipeline | |
| ## Slide 2 - Motivation | |
| - Legal QA must be grounded. | |
| - Fluent but unsupported answers are risky. | |
| - Evaluation should include retrieval, answer quality, citation accuracy, and faithfulness. | |
| ## Slide 3 - Dataset | |
| - 7,579 corpus chunks | |
| - 1,000 retrieval eval queries | |
| - 240 gold QA questions | |
| - 2,059 embedding triples | |
| - 6,752 reranker pairs | |
| - 13,758 LLM SFT examples | |
| ## Slide 4 - Architecture | |
| ```text | |
| Question -> Retriever -> Top-k chunks -> Answer generator -> Cited answer | |
| ``` | |
| Baseline: | |
| - BM25 | |
| - Dense MiniLM | |
| - Hybrid retrieval | |
| - Extractive citation-grounded answer | |
| ## Slide 5 - Retrieval Results | |
| | Retriever | Recall@10 | MRR | | |
| |---|---:|---:| | |
| | BM25 | 0.975 | 0.863 | | |
| | Dense MiniLM | 0.676 | 0.518 | | |
| | Hybrid | 0.969 | 0.855 | | |
| Main point: BM25 is very strong for legal text. | |
| ## Slide 6 - Reranker Experiment | |
| | System | Recall@10 | MRR | | |
| |---|---:|---:| | |
| | BM25 first stage | 1.000 | 0.990 | | |
| | Pretrained reranker | 0.810 | 0.550 | | |
| | Fine-tuned reranker, 100q | 0.970 | 0.898 | | |
| Main point: general-domain reranker has domain mismatch, and legal fine-tuning helps substantially. | |
| ## Slide 7 - Embedding Tuning | |
| - `embedding.jsonl` gives query, positive passage, hard negative passage. | |
| - Full CPU triplet-loss training was run on all 2,059 triples. | |
| - The tuned dense model scored Recall@10 0.591 vs base dense 0.676. | |
| - Main point: fine-tuning must be validated; it does not automatically improve retrieval. | |
| ## Slide 8 - QA Evaluation | |
| | System | F1 | Top-5 Hit | Citation Acc. | Faithfulness | | |
| |---|---:|---:|---:|---:| | |
| | BM25 + extractive | 0.799 | 0.908 | 0.813 | 0.961 | | |
| Main point: answers are grounded, but citation accuracy depends on top-1 ranking. | |
| ## Slide 9 - Error Analysis | |
| - 22 retrieval failures | |
| - 23 ranking failures | |
| Implication: | |
| - Retrieval failures need better first-stage retrieval. | |
| - Ranking failures need domain-tuned reranker. | |
| ## Slide 10 - Optimization Plan | |
| - Full embedding fine-tuning completed on CPU. | |
| - Cross-encoder reranker fine-tuning completed on CPU. | |
| - LLM instruction-tuning smoke run completed with `llm.jsonl`. | |
| - LLM/NLI judge faithfulness completed on 240 QA examples. | |
| ## Slide 11 - Reproducibility | |
| - GitHub repository | |
| - Dataset split documentation | |
| - Scripts for retrieval, QA, reranker, embedding training | |
| - Output JSON files for metrics | |
| ## Slide 12 - Conclusion | |
| - Built a complete Turkish legal RAG evaluation framework. | |
| - BM25 is the strongest current demo retriever. | |
| - Fine-tuning and judge experiments were run and measured. | |
| - Error analysis identifies where future optimization should focus. | |