analiza aiqbench
This paper presents a rigorous benchmark comparing the Jev system against nine language models for legal contract inference, highlighting that aggregate accuracy metrics can mask individual decision instability. The study reveals critical trade-offs between inference cost and response time versus baseline accuracy, demonstrating that rankings based on these factors diverge significantly under varying request configurations. These findings are essential for developers seeking to optimize legal AI tools where consistent individual judgment is as important as overall correctness.
Same Scores, Different Decisions: Evaluating JEV and Language Models for Legal Document Understanding
arXiv:2609.27678v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contract inference requires multiple judgments about a shared document, but aggregate accuracy can conceal changes in the individual decisions. Repeated agreement is also insufficient: a model may consistently return the wrong answer. In this paper, we compare Jev with nine language models on ContractNLI, evaluating inference cost, response time, average correctness, and correctness across repeated request conditions. Controlled comparisons vary hypothesis visibility, requested outputs, and output order while keeping the contract and target judgment fixed. Jev has the lowest cost and median response time among the evaluated configurations, while hosted language models achieve higher baseline accuracy. Rankings by baseline accuracy differ from rankings by correctness across every condition and repeat, although small differences in the latter do not establish a general stability advantage. Development diagnostics further reveal compensating corrections and regressions, as well as persistent errors. These findings motivate evaluating cost and response time alongside whether individual judgments remain correct as the request configuration changes. Code: https://github.com/ZF-Utokyo/Jev-Benchmark
Authors:Fan Zhang, Yankai Chen, Zhuohan Xie, Yixi Zhou, Sijia Peng, Lei Fan, Xinhua Ji, Cunyuan Zheng, Huangyong Shan, Philip S. Yu, Xue Liu, Yu Chen, Preslav Nakov, Songwei He
Abstract:Contract inference requires multiple judgments about a shared document, but aggregate accuracy can conceal changes in the individual decisions. Repeated agreement is also insufficient: a model may consistently return the wrong answer. In this paper, we compare Jev with nine language models on ContractNLI, evaluating inference cost, response time, average correctness, and correctness across repeated request conditions. Controlled comparisons vary hypothesis visibility, requested outputs, and output order while keeping the contract and target judgment fixed. Jev has the lowest cost and median response time among the evaluated configurations, while hosted language models achieve higher baseline accuracy. Rankings by baseline accuracy differ from rankings by correctness across every condition and repeat, although small differences in the latter do not establish a general stability advantage. Development diagnostics further reveal compensating corrections and regressions, as well as persistent errors. These findings motivate evaluating cost and response time alongside whether individual judgments remain correct as the request configuration changes. Code: this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.27678 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.27678v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.27678 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 207 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026