Papers › Peeking Inside LLMs: Leveraging Internal Artifacts of LLMs for Enhancing Reliability...
Peeking Inside LLMs: Leveraging Internal Artifacts of LLMs for Enhancing Reliability in Legal Classification
Sudipta Santra, Debtanu Datta, Saptarshi Ghosh
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being adopted in the legal domain. However, despite their strong performance, LLMs are prone to generating incorrect or hallucinated outputs, raising serious concerns about their reliability in high-stakes domains such as law. Detecting the correctness of responses of LLM-based systems is therefore a critical challenge. In this work, we explore the potential of leveraging internal artifacts of LLM to detect the correctness of their predictions in legal-domain classification tasks. We develop approaches that utilize features derived from these internal artifacts to build downstream classifiers capable of identifying incorrect LLM outputs. We evaluate our approach on two representative legal classification tasks: bail decision prediction and statute violation prediction. Our experimental results demonstrate that LLMs' internal artifacts are reliable indicators for detecting incorrect predictions in legal classification tasks, and can be applied to enhance the reliability of LLM-based classification systems.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Code
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2606.20929, was issued in June 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections