arXiv preprint ·
Comparing GenAI to Machine Learning and Manual Review for eDiscovery
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Published in
- arXiv
- DOI
- 10.48550/arxiv.2610.16925
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Cited by
- 0 works, as OpenAlex counts them
- Topics
In brief
A Fairer Test for AI Document Review
Reanalyzing Redgrave LLP’s case-study data, the authors conclude that Relativity aiR and manual review are comparable once those differences are considered. They also report that established Continuous Active Learning (CAL) models can deliver state-of-the-art effectiveness and greater efficiency using just 2,000 first-pass reviewer responsiveness determinations.
What they found: The abstract reports 88% recall for aiR and 64% for Relativity Assisted Learning in the Redgrave case study, but says those figures are not comparable because the methods had different objectives and were affected by assessor disagreement and differing trade-offs. After accounting for those issues, the authors find aiR and manual review comparable.
AI-written summary. Check anything you rely on against the original paper.
Abstract
Keeling et al. [Keeling2026Generative] report on a case study recently conducted by Redgrave LLP in which they assert that Relativity's Generative AI Review tool (aiR) achieved 88% recall while Relativity Assisted Learning (RAL), its machine-learning tool, achieved 64% recall. These results are not comparable because the methods employed have different objectives, because of inter-assessor disagreement, and because they represent different recall-precision and cost-benefit trade-offs. Our analysis of the Redgrave data indicates that, when these differences are taken into account, aiR and manual review are comparable. Furthermore, established machine-learning models employing Continuous Active Learning (CAL) show state-of-the-art effectiveness, and superior efficiency, when trained only on a sample of 2,000 first-pass-reviewer responsiveness determinations.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
OT-FlowRec: Optimal Transport-Guided Multi-Bridge Flow for Multimodal Sequential Recommendation
Reference Wording Shapes Retrieval of Robot Task Instructions
UniSGR-V2: Stepwise Target-Side Feature Anticipation and Crossing for Generative Recommendation
AiSAQ-in-Filtering for DRAM-free Filtered Information Retrieval
Recall Begets Recall: Recurrent Memory Ranking for Personalized LLMs
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.