Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

CrossLex: A Source-Grounded Benchmark for Cross-Jurisdictional Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A new benchmark shows that language models often pair a correct legal conclusion with the wrong jurisdiction.

desk verdict A useful aligned-fact legal benchmark whose headline claim is plausible, but the construction math doesn't add up and the gold-label verification is under-reported; send to review with requests for transparency. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01292 v1 pith:HHPBIE2V submitted 2026-08-02 cs.CL

Xiaocui Yang , Xican Tan , Shoujie Chen , Shihan Xiao , Keke Tong , Xinyu Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords cross-jurisdictionallegalreasoningbenchmarkcitationgroundingjurisdictionbindinglargelanguagemodelscomparativelawGroundedJointquestionanswering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces CrossLex, a benchmark built to test whether large language models can keep legal systems apart when the facts stay the same. It aligns 55 legal issues across China, California, and Germany, turning them into 385 fact groups and 6,149 expert-validated question-answer instances with supporting citations. The authors design three tasks: single-jurisdiction judgment, joint cross-jurisdictional comparison, and fine-grained jurisdiction-conclusion binding, plus a Grounded Joint metric that credits an answer only when both the conclusion and its legal-source citations are correct. Across many current models, single-jurisdiction accuracy is high and joint comparison is near ceiling, but jurisdiction binding and citation grounding lag far behind. The paper concludes that evaluating legal AI on answer accuracy alone is misleading, and that jurisdiction-aware, source-grounded assessment should be the standard.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the CrossLex benchmark itself: same-fact, jurisdiction-aligned questions with gold answers and gold citations. Its construction chain runs from 55 functionally comparable legal issue schemas, through seven controlled fact groups per issue (385 total), to three task formats (T1 single-jurisdiction, T2 joint CN-CA-DE comparison, T3 jurisdiction-conclusion binding). The measuring instrument is the Grounded Joint metric, defined as $GJ = \frac{1}{N}\sum_n \mathbb{1}[\hat{y}_n = y_n]\cdot F1^{\mathrm{cite}}_n$, where answer correctness is multiplied by citation F1 over normalized legal-source identifiers. The mechanism this exposes is the binding gap: recognizing a plausible rule and knowing which legal system it belongs to are distinct capabilities, and current models possess the first without the second.

What would settle it

Ask a panel of legal professionals from each of the three jurisdictions, blind to CrossLex's gold labels, to independently answer a sample of the T3 fact groups and cite the governing source; if the experts disagree with the gold binding on a substantial share of divergent items, then the measured binding gap is partly an artifact of contested gold labels rather than a pure model failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that there is a measurable binding gap in current LLMs: given an identical neutral fact pattern, models can often identify plausible legal conclusions for China, California, and Germany, but they frequently attach a conclusion to the wrong governing legal system and cannot supply the correct supporting authority. This is established with three increasingly difficult tasks on the same fact groups, where the hardest task (T3) requires assigning each jurisdiction its correct legal conclusion from a shared candidate pool. Models reach near-ceiling scores on joint comparison yet drop sharply on exact jurisdiction-binding accuracy, and their Grounded Joint scores are consistently lower than answer accuracy. The paper argues this gap is not captured by existing single-jurisdiction or multilingual benchmarks, and that moving beyond answer accuracy toward jurisdiction-aware and source-grounded evaluation is necessary for legal AI.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark is valid only if the 55 issues are genuinely functionally comparable across China, California, and Germany, and only if each fact group has exactly one legally defensible gold conclusion and citation set per jurisdiction; the paper reports professional review but does not provide inter-annotator agreement data or a detailed legal-theory defense of comparability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Legal AI evaluation should report a source-grounded score like Grounded Joint alongside answer accuracy; an answer without the correct citation no longer counts as fully correct.
  • Near-ceiling performance on joint comparison can conceal a severe jurisdiction-binding failure, so aggregate accuracy measures are insufficient for legal benchmarks.
  • Retrieval augmentation alone will not fix cross-jurisdictional reasoning, because a model can retrieve the right statute and still bind the conclusion to the wrong legal system.
  • CrossLex is usable as supervision: lightweight models fine-tuned on its training set substantially improve citation quality and Grounded Joint scores while preserving answer accuracy.
  • Future legal benchmarks for multilingual or multi-system law should align identical fact patterns across jurisdictions, not just pool independent single-jurisdiction questions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the binding gap holds beyond these three systems, the same aligned-fact design should expose similar jurisdiction confusion in other pairs of legal systems; the benchmark is a template that can be extended rather than a one-off evaluation.
  • The separation between T1 competence and T3 binding fault suggests a concrete architectural target: models may need an explicit jurisdiction-attribution component that ties each retrieved rule to its legal system before stating a conclusion.
  • A testable extension would take the divergent fact groups and ask lawyers from each jurisdiction to write the outcome and citation from memory; comparing those human protocols with model outputs would show whether the gap is a recall problem, a source-grounding problem, or a genuine confusion about legal-system boundaries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CrossLex, a source-grounded benchmark for cross-jurisdictional legal reasoning across China, California, and Germany. The benchmark is built from 55 functionally comparable legal issues across five domains, expanded into 385 fact groups and 6,149 QA instances, and organized into three tasks: single-jurisdiction judgment (T1), multi-jurisdiction joint judgment (T2), and fine-grained jurisdiction–conclusion binding (T3). A new metric, Grounded Joint (GJ), jointly scores answer correctness and citation grounding. The paper also reports evaluation results for a range of closed- and open-weight LLMs, showing high T1 and T2 accuracy but much lower T3 binding accuracy and citation quality, and presents experiments with multilingual BM25-RAG and LoRA fine-tuning. The central claim is that current LLMs possess substantial single-jurisdiction legal knowledge yet fail to associate legal conclusions with the correct governing jurisdiction when facts are held constant.

Significance. If the benchmark is valid, it fills a real gap: existing legal benchmarks do not align identical fact patterns across jurisdictions, so they cannot directly test jurisdiction–conclusion binding. The three-task progression is a well-designed way to separate single-jurisdiction knowledge from cross-jurisdictional comparison and fine-grained binding. The empirical T2-versus-T3 gap is a falsifiable and potentially impactful finding: it suggests that answer-level accuracy can mask systematic jurisdiction confusion. The paper also ships practical infrastructure decisions (group-aware splits, leakage audits, normalized citation identifiers) that support reproducibility once the data are released. The main empirical results that motivate the benchmark are the low citation-F1 and GJ scores, and the high T2 scores that conceal low T3 binding accuracy; these are plausible but, as detailed below, they rest on unverified label quality and on an unexplained instance count.

major comments (3)
  1. [Stage III and Stage V (Figure 2)] There is an unexplained arithmetic mismatch between the stated construction pipeline and the reported instance count. Stage III says each validated fact group is transformed into three task-specific QA formats, and Stage II yields 385 = 55 × 7 fact groups; that gives 385 × 3 = 1,155 instances, not the 6,149 reported in the abstract, Figure 2, and Stage V. Even if T1 is generated separately per jurisdiction (which would give 385 × 5 = 1,925), the count still does not reach 6,149. The paper must provide a construction table that reconciles the per-task and per-jurisdiction instance counts with the reported total; otherwise the denominators for the per-task numbers in Table 2 cannot be verified.
  2. [Stage V: Professional Validation and Final Audit] The paper does not report any inter-annotator agreement or adjudication statistics. It states that each item was independently reviewed by two legally trained annotators and that disagreements were resolved through adjudication, but it gives no Cohen's kappa or similar measure, no count of disagreements, no number of items excluded or revised under the 'hard-case adjudication' review dimension, and no release of the data. Because the central claim that T3 binding accuracy is low presupposes that the gold jurisdiction–conclusion bindings are both correct and unique, unquantified label noise could depress T3 scores just as easily as model confusion. The paper should report IAA, adjudication outcomes, exclusion counts, and ideally a sample or release of the data to make this assumption testable.
  3. [Evaluation Metrics, Eq. (9)] The definition of Citation-F1 and its use inside Grounded Joint is under-specified. Eq. (9) computes GJ as the mean over instances of 1[y_hat = y] times F1_cite_n, but the paper never states how a model's free-form citations are segmented, normalized, matched to the gold citation set, or assigned partial credit. It also does not specify whether the instance-level F1 is computed over sets of canonical citation identifiers, how duplicate or extra citations are counted, and what happens when a model cites a jurisdictionally correct rule but with an incomplete authority. All citation-related numbers in Table 2 and Figure 4 depend on this definition, so the paper must make the citation-matching procedure explicit and reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 2] The label 'Gold Catition' in the Stage II panel appears to be a typo for 'Gold Citation' and should be corrected.
  2. [Introduction, last paragraph before 'To address this gap'] The sentence ending '...associate each conclusion with its governing legal.' is grammatically incomplete; 'legal' lacks its noun (e.g., 'legal system' or 'governing jurisdiction').
  3. [Table 2] The column groups for T3 are difficult to read: 'All CN CA DE Citation-F1 GJ' does not clearly separate the accuracy columns from the Citation-F1 and GJ columns, and 'GJ-Avg' is not defined in the table caption. Please clarify the subheadings and define GJ-Avg as the macro-average over T1, T2, and T3 GJ scores.
  4. [Stage II and Figure 2] The paper repeatedly refers to 'aligned, jurisdiction-neutral fact patterns' but does not show a concrete example of the exact same fact text across the three jurisdictions; the liquidated-damages example in Figure 2 is illustrative only. A sample aligned fact group in the main text or appendix would help readers verify the neutrality claim.
  5. [Figure 4] The caption says 'unified exact-set scoring with multiple denominators' but the figure does not explain what the denominator is for each metric; please state the scoring rules per task in the caption or the main text.
  6. [Abstract and Stage I] The phrase 'authoritative legal sources' is vague in the abstract; the concrete sources (China National Laws Database, California Legislative Information, Bundesministerium der Justiz) appear only in the Figure 2 diagram and should be named in the text as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: CrossLex gold answers and citations come from external legal review; empirical claims are measured against those labels, not derived from model inputs.

full rationale

This paper constructs a benchmark and evaluates LLMs against it; there is no claimed mathematical derivation from first principles whose output is equivalent to its input. The gold answers, jurisdiction bindings, and gold citations are produced in Stage V by legally trained human annotators reviewing the candidates against official legal sources, and only these externally validated labels enter the reported T1/T2/T3 and Grounded Joint scores. The Stage IV multi-model consensus check is only a filtering step; its agreement condition (Eq. 8) is not used as the source of ground truth. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked, and no definition is circularly stated in terms of the quantity it is used to predict. The discrepancy between the stated 6,149 instances and the 55×7×3 pipeline arithmetic, and the absence of reported inter-annotator agreement, are reproducibility and validity concerns, not circularity: even if the numbers are inconsistent or the labels are imperfect, the empirical claims would be measuring those labels rather than reducing to the construction procedure. The paper contains no author self-citations and no load-bearing citation to prior work by the same authors. The central claim that models struggle with cross-jurisdictional citation grounding is therefore an externally grounded empirical finding, not a definitional artifact.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a benchmark and a metric, not new physical entities. Its free parameters are design choices (number of issues, fact groups per issue) rather than fitted values. The load-bearing assumptions are the functional comparability of legal issues and the neutrality of fact patterns.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 55 legal issues are functionally comparable across China, California, and Germany.
    Stage I states 'Issue alignment is functional rather than literal... they address a shared legal problem.' The benchmark's cross-jurisdictional comparison depends on this alignment being valid.
  • domain assumption The fact patterns are jurisdiction-neutral and uniquely determinative under each jurisdiction's law.
    Stage II and Stage V rely on legal reviewers to ensure each multiple-choice item has exactly one legally defensible answer and that facts do not leak jurisdictional assumptions.
  • domain assumption The authoritative legal sources cited are correctly interpreted in the gold conclusions.
    Stage V states reviewers audit answer correctness with reference to official legal sources, but the paper provides no inter-annotator reliability data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CrossLex: A Source-Grounded Benchmark for Cross-Jurisdictional Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HHPBIE2V

@misc{pith2026260801292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CrossLex: A Source-Grounded Benchmark for Cross-Jurisdictional Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HHPBIE2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01292}
}
read the original abstract

Legal reasoning is inherently jurisdiction-dependent: the same facts can call for different legal rules and yield different conclusions across legal systems. Yet existing benchmarks rarely evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can recognize such jurisdiction-specific variation, especially when identical fact patterns lead to divergent legal outcomes.We introduce CrossLex, a same-fact, legal-source-grounded benchmark for evaluating cross-jurisdictional legal reasoning in LLMs across three jurisdictions: China, California, and Germany. Built from authoritative legal sources, CrossLex aligns 55 legal issues spanning contract, consumer, criminal, family, and labor law, and constructs jurisdiction-aligned questions paired with answers and supporting citations. In total, CrossLex contains 6,149 instances organized into 385 fact groups, with all legal issues, answers, and cited authorities reviewed by legal professionals.To disentangle basic legal knowledge from cross-jurisdictional reasoning, CrossLex defines three complementary tasks: single-jurisdiction reasoning (T1), joint cross-jurisdictional comparison (T2), and fine-grained cross-jurisdictional evaluation (T3). We further propose Grounded Joint, a metric that jointly assesses answer correctness and legal-source grounding, and provide a unified evaluation for streamlined benchmarking. Extensive experiments on representative LLMs show that, although current models can often answer legal questions correctly, they struggle to provide accurate cross-jurisdictional legal citations.We hope that CrossLex will facilitate future research on source-grounded cross-jurisdictional legal reasoning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01292 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The same factual scenario may lead to different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the CrossLex construction framework. Neutral fact groups are aligned with jurisdiction-specific rules and source evidence, then instantiated into T1, T2, and T3 tasks. Stage I: Legal Scope and Issue Schema Definition We define the legal scope of CrossLex over representative legal jurisdictions, i.e., China(CN), California (U.S. CA), and Germany(DE), and five legal domains, such as contract law, consumer … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of legal issues across the five domains in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-model multi-metric radar profiles on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Adaptation results on CrossLex across model scales. curacy. These results suggest that CrossLex is useful not only for evaluation, but also as supervision for learning jurisdiction-aware and source-grounded legal reasoning. Related Works Legal Benchmarks Existing legal…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02478 , year =

    Xiao, Chaojun and Zhong, Haoxi and Guo, Zhipeng and Tu, Cunchao and Liu, Zhiyuan and Sun, Maosong and Feng, Yansong and Han, Xianpei and Hu, Zhen and Wang, Heng and Xu, Jianfeng , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02478 , year =

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.05851 , year =

    Zhong, Haoxi and Xiao, Chaojun and Guo, Zhipeng and Tu, Cunchao and Liu, Zhiyuan and Sun, Maosong and Feng, Yansong and Han, Xianpei and Hu, Zhen and Wang, Heng and Xu, Jianfeng , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.05851 , year =

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume =

    Zhong, Haoxi and Xiao, Chaojun and Tu, Cunchao and Zhang, Tianyang and Liu, Zhiyuan and Sun, Maosong , title =. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume =. 2020 , publisher =. doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6519 , url =

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6519 2020

  4. [4]

    and Henderson, Peter and Ho, Daniel E

    Zheng, Lucia and Guha, Neel and Anderson, Brandon R. and Henderson, Peter and Ho, Daniel E. , title =. Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law , pages =. 2021 , publisher =. doi:10.1145/3462757.3466088 , url =

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks , volume =

    Hendrycks, Dan and Burns, Collin and Chen, Anya and Ball, Spencer , title =. Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks , volume =. 2021 , url =

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Guha, Neel and Nyarko, Julian and Ho, Daniel E. and R. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2023 , url =

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Fei, Zhiwei and Shen, Xiaoyu and Zhu, Dawei and Zhou, Fengzhe and Han, Zhuo and Huang, Alan and Zhang, Songyang and Chen, Kai and Yin, Zhixin and Shen, Zongwen and Ge, Jidong and Ng, Vincent , title =. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =. 2024 , doi =

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12864 , year =

    Fan, Yu and Ni, Jingwei and Merane, Jakob and Salimbeni, Etienne and Tian, Yang and Hermstr. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12864 , year =

    arXiv

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 , pages =

    Chalkidis, Ilias and Fergadiotis, Manos and Malakasiotis, Prodromos and Aletras, Nikolaos and Androutsopoulos, Ion , title =. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 , pages =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  2. [10]

    AI Open , volume =

    Xiao, Chaojun and Hu, Xueyu and Liu, Zhiyuan and Tu, Cunchao and Sun, Maosong , title =. AI Open , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  3. [11]

    Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages =

    Chalkidis, Ilias and Fergadiotis, Emmanouil and Malakasiotis, Prodromos and Androutsopoulos, Ion , title =. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  4. [12]

    Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Chalkidis, Ilias and Fergadiotis, Manos and Androutsopoulos, Ion , title =. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  5. [13]

    Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages =

    Chalkidis, Ilias and Jana, Abhik and Hartung, Dirk and Bommarito, Michael and Androutsopoulos, Ion and Katz, Daniel and Aletras, Nikolaos , title =. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  6. [14]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages =

    Niklaus, Joel and Matoshi, Veton and Rani, Pooja and Galassi, Andrea and St. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  7. [15]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages =

    Niklaus, Joel and Matoshi, Veton and St. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  8. [16]

    The Review of Socionetwork Strategies , volume =

    Goebel, Randy and Kano, Yoshinobu and Kim, Mi-Young and Rabelo, Juliano and Satoh, Ken and Yoshioka, Masaharu , title =. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.29738 , year =

    Ovcharov, Volodymyr , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.29738 , year =

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive

    Lewis, Patrick and Perez, Ethan and Piktus, Aleksandra and Petroni, Fabio and Karpukhin, Vladimir and Goyal, Naman and K. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2020 , url =

    2020

  11. [19]

    Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Karpukhin, Vladimir and Oguz, Barlas and Min, Sewon and Lewis, Patrick and Wu, Ledell and Edunov, Sergey and Chen, Danqi and Yih, Wen-tau , title =. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  12. [20]

    Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume , pages =

    Izacard, Gautier and Grave, Edouard , title =. Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume , pages =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  13. [21]

    Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval , volume =

    Robertson, Stephen and Zaragoza, Hugo , title =. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval , volume =. 2009 , doi =

    2009

  14. [22]

    and Shen, Yelong and Wallis, Phillip and Allen-Zhu, Zeyuan and Li, Yuanzhi and Wang, Shean and Wang, Lu and Chen, Weizhu , title =

    Hu, Edward J. and Shen, Yelong and Wallis, Phillip and Allen-Zhu, Zeyuan and Li, Yuanzhi and Wang, Shean and Wang, Lu and Chen, Weizhu , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  15. [23]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

    Dettmers, Tim and Pagnoni, Artidoro and Holtzman, Ari and Zettlemoyer, Luke , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2023 , url =

    2023

  16. [24]

    Ouyang, Long and Wu, Jeffrey and Jiang, Xu and Almeida, Diogo and Wainwright, Carroll L. and Mishkin, Pamela and Zhang, Chong and Agarwal, Sandhini and Slama, Katarina and Ray, Alex and Schulman, John and Hilton, Jacob and Kelton, Fraser and Miller, Luke and Simens, Maddie and...

    2022

  17. [25]

    and Ermon, Stefano and Finn, Chelsea , title =

    Rafailov, Rafael and Sharma, Archit and Mitchell, Eric and Manning, Christopher D. and Ermon, Stefano and Finn, Chelsea , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2023 , url =

    2023

  18. [26]

    Shao, Zhihong and Wang, Peiyi and Zhu, Qihao and Xu, Runxin and Song, Junxiao and Bi, Xiao and Zhang, Haowei and Zhang, Mingchuan and Li, Y. K. and Wu, Y. and Guo, Daya , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300 , year =

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Brown, Tom B. and Mann, Benjamin and Ryder, Nick and Subbiah, Melanie and Kaplan, Jared and Dhariwal, Prafulla and Neelakantan, Arvind and Shyam, Pranav and Sastry, Girish and Askell, Amanda and Agarwal, Sandhini and Herbert-Voss, Ariel and Krueger, Gretchen and Henighan, Tom ...

  20. [28]

    and Le, Quoc V

    Wei, Jason and Wang, Xuezhi and Schuurmans, Dale and Bosma, Maarten and Xia, Fei and Chi, Ed H. and Le, Quoc V. and Zhou, Denny , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

  21. [29]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

    Kojima, Takeshi and Gu, Shixiang Shane and Reid, Machel and Matsuo, Yutaka and Iwasawa, Yusuke , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

  22. [30]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Hendrycks, Dan and Burns, Collin and Basart, Steven and Zou, Andy and Mazeika, Mantas and Song, Dawn and Steinhardt, Jacob , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  23. [31]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research , year =

    Srivastava, Aarohi and Rastogi, Abhinav and Rao, Abhishek and Shoeb, Abu Awal Md and Abid, Abubakar and Fisch, Adam and Brown, Adam and Santoro, Adam and Gupta, Aditya and others , title =. Transactions on Machine Learning Research , year =

  24. [32]

    Liang, Percy and Bommasani, Rishi and Lee, Tony and Tsipras, Dimitris and Soylu, Dilara and Yasunaga, Michihiro and Zhang, Yian and Narayanan, Deepak and Wu, Yuhuai and Kumar, Ananya and Newman, Benjamin and Yuan, Binhang and Yan, Bobby and Zhang, Ce and Cosgrove, Christian an...

    2023

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year =

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing , pages =

    Beltagy, Iz and Lo, Kyle and Cohan, Arman , title =. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing , pages =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  27. [35]

    and Katz, Daniel Martin , title =

    Bommarito, Michael J. and Katz, Daniel Martin , title =. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  28. [36]

    and Blackman, Josh , title =

    Katz, Daniel Martin and Bommarito, Michael J. and Blackman, Josh , title =. PLOS ONE , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130 , year =

    Edge, Darren and Trinh, Ha and Cheng, Newman and Bradley, Joshua and Chao, Alex and Mody, Apurva and Truitt, Steven and Metropolitansky, Dasha and Ness, Robert Osazuwa and Larson, Jonathan , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130 , year =

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Chan, Chi-Min and Chen, Weize and Su, Yusheng and Yu, Jianxuan and Xue, Wei and Zhang, Shanghang and Fu, Jie and Liu, Zhiyuan , title =. International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  31. [39]

    Jiang, Albert Q. and Sablayrolles, Alexandre and Mensch, Arthur and Bamford, Chris and Chaplot, Devendra Singh and de las Casas, Diego and Bressand, Florian and Lengyel, Gianna and Lample, Guillaume and Saulnier, Lucile and Lavaud, L. Mistral 7B , journal =. 2023 , url =

    2023

  32. [40]

    2026 , howpublished =

    2026

  33. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15763 , year =

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    2024 , howpublished =

    2024

  35. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , year =

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12793 , year =

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year =

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02556 , year =

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.