Daily Papers

Reviewing contracts is a time-consuming procedure that incurs large expenses to companies and social inequality to those who cannot afford it. In this work, we propose "document-level natural language inference (NLI) for contracts", a novel, real-world application of NLI that addresses such problems. In this task, a system is given a set of hypotheses (such as "Some obligations of Agreement may survive termination.") and a contract, and it is asked to classify whether each hypothesis is "entailed by", "contradicting to" or "not mentioned by" (neutral to) the contract as well as identifying "evidence" for the decision as spans in the contract. We annotated and release the largest corpus to date consisting of 607 annotated contracts. We then show that existing models fail badly on our task and introduce a strong baseline, which (1) models evidence identification as multi-label classification over spans instead of trying to predict start and end tokens, and (2) employs more sophisticated context segmentation for dealing with long documents. We also show that linguistic characteristics of contracts, such as negations by exceptions, are contributing to the difficulty of this task and that there is much room for improvement.

Aggregate accuracy summarizes how often a model is correct, but not which judgments remain correct when requests change. We evaluate Jev and nine language models on ContractNLI, with repeated requests that preserve the contract and target while varying visible hypotheses, requested answers, and output order. A four-model follow-up adds an equal-call repetition control and coverage of the remaining test contracts. Corrections and regressions can cancel, leaving unchanged accuracy despite changed decisions; consistent answers can also preserve errors. Majority voting over recorded responses yields small, uncertain gains, with repeated wrong answers accounting for much of the observed error. Gold-class diagnostics further reveal different error profiles behind aggregate model rankings. Resource comparisons add distinct trade-offs: Jev is cheapest and fastest for the joint baseline, while hosted language models achieve higher accuracy. Together, these findings connect decision-level evaluation to whether additional calls improve correctness and what the resulting decisions cost.

Letting a language model take gradient steps on the text it is reading, known as dynamic evaluation, lowers its loss on the rest of the document. Its behaviour on hybrid linear-attention architectures, on diffusion language models, and on standard long-context benchmarks has not been measured. We measure it. With one SGD step per 128-token chunk on the MLP output projections of the last quarter of blocks, no training, and a 2k-token window, softmax-attention models (Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3-4B, Gemma-4-E4B) lose 5-8% of their next-token loss over a document and outperform the same frozen model given the full 32k-token context. Hybrid Gated-DeltaNet models (Qwen3.5-4B, Qwen3.8-27B) gain under 1% at every learning rate: the linear-attention blocks already perform the adaptation. The mechanism transfers to masked-diffusion models with a larger effect, 8% on Nemotron-Diffusion-8B and 17-20% on DiffusionGemma-26B, once the rate is lowered and updates are clipped. Across RULER, BABILong, LongBench-v2, SCOTUS, HotpotQA, MuSiQue, ContractNLI and citation completion, at 100 or more items on two model sizes, weights updated on the full document recover none of the accuracy lost to context truncation: the adaptation is style and vocabulary, not retrieval. Writing facts with the next-token loss stores the prompt format rather than the fact (30% recall under chat prompting against 80% in context) and costs 36-38 GSM8K points at every dose. Writing a conclusion as behaviour instead, by distilling the model's own conclusion-conditioned judgments into a low-rank adapter, reaches the in-context ceiling (0.83 and 0.88 against 0.84 and 0.88 on 100 games) with GSM8K unchanged, and the conclusion can come from an inquiry loop that found it by asking information-gain questions.

Large language models increasingly justify legal decisions by naming the statute or precedent behind a verdict, treated as evidence that the decision follows from it. We test this directly: holding case facts fixed, we substitute the named legal authority for an unrelated one and decode a model's evolving verdict from its hidden states. Across seven open-weight models (8B-70B) and four benchmarks spanning judicial and contractual reasoning, when explicitly required to justify a verdict by naming the governing authority, models name the correct one in 66.7%-100% of generations, while the verdict changing when the authority changes is far less consistent: 0.0%-21.7% on CaseHOLD, 30.0%-76.7% on ECHR and SCOTUS, and 43.3%-50.0% on ContractNLI. Neither scale nor a purpose-built legal-reasoning model (a best-effort LoRA reproduction; Section 6) closes this gap. A red-teaming evaluation on five core models finds compliance with an adversarial instruction hidden in the case facts (73.3%-96.4%) exceeds verdict-swap sensitivity by a wide margin, holding without exception across model rankings. Naming a legal authority is thus a poor proxy for a verdict's dependence on it, while the same verdict remains separately vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. Both findings replicate across checks ruling out prompt-wording noise and confounded sampling, and bear directly on the use of generated legal explanations as compliance or audit artefacts.