Table 1 Overview of prior research in policy recommendation and document Interpretation.
Ref. | Methods used | Dataset | Major findings | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Fine-tuning, RLHF, Prompt Engineering, RAG | Various datasets for personalized LLM evaluation | Explores various personalization techniques for LLMs to improve user-specific responses | Lack of high-quality user-labeled datasets, cold-start problem, privacy concerns | |
RAG, Dense Vector Retrieval (FAISS), Hybrid Search (BM25 + Neural Reranking) | Proprietary unstructured documents | RAG significantly enhances response relevance by incorporating external knowledge | Scaling RAG, reliability issues, hallucination in LLMs | |
NER, Transformer-based NLP models (BERT, RoBERTa), OCR | 9 Swedish condo insurance policy documents | Automates information extraction, reducing manual effort in insurance policy analysis | Imbalanced dataset, limited positive samples, need for human interpretation | |
Rule-based Chatbot, Transformer-based Conversational AI (DialoGPT), Intent Recognition (BERT) | Cornell movie dialogue dataset, custom insurance dataset | Enhances customer support by automating policy-related queries | Limited by dataset scope, lack of real-time learning | |
Decision Trees, Random Forest, NLP-based Claim Analysis (BERT, LSTM) | 88 real-life road traffic accident cases | AI-driven models improve dispute resolution efficiency and fairness | Small dataset, legal language complexity |