Quebec Automobile Insurance Question-Answering With Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) perform outstandingly in various downstream tasks, and the use of the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architecture has been shown to improve performance for legal question answering (Nuruzzaman and Hussain, 2020;Louis et al., 2024).However, there are limited applications in insurance questions-answering, a specific type of legal document.This paper introduces two corpora: the Quebec Automobile Insurance Expertise Reference Corpus and a set of 82 Expert Answers to Layperson Automobile Insurance Questions.Our study leverages both corpora to automatically and manually assess a GPT4-o, a state-of-the-art LLM, to answer Quebec automobile insurance questions.Our results demonstrate that, on average, using our expertise reference corpus generates better responses on both automatic and manual evaluation metrics.However, they also highlight that LLM QA is unreliable enough for mass utilization in critical areas.Indeed, our results show that between 5% to 13% of answered questions include a false statement that could lead to customer misunderstanding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".