arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

Gated Against One Model, Open to the Next: Option-Only Solvability in Legal Multiple-Choice Benchmarks

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2608.15428 (cs)
[Submitted on 15 Aug 2026]

Title:Gated Against One Model, Open to the Next: Option-Only Solvability in Legal Multiple-Choice Benchmarks

View a PDF of the paper titled Gated Against One Model, Open to the Next: Option-Only Solvability in Legal Multiple-Choice Benchmarks, by Volodymyr Ovcharov
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Multiple-choice benchmarks are graded on whether a model picks the right option, not on whether it needed the question. Measuring that gap takes care: a model answering A to most items scores above chance wherever the key sits at A, and reads as recognition when it is not. We measure it on UA-JudgeExam: 11,990 four-option items with official keys, published by Ukraine's Higher Qualification Commission of Judges.
Shown the options and no question, Claude Haiku 4.5 scores 0.383 against chance, and the leak is concentrated: 11.8% of items are answered blind on all eight option orders, against 0.2 items expected by chance. It is not quotation: search over 280,059 editions of Ukrainian legislation recovers 0.128. Gating those out retains 8,128 items, on which the gating model itself now scores 0.204, and GPT-5.6, which took no part in the selection, still answers 0.515 of them with the question hidden. Scoring twelve held-out models on the whole set and subtracting each one's answer-position habit, only two keep an excess: GPT-5.6 at +0.265, Sonnet 4.6 at +0.081. Without it the ranking misleads: Llama 3.1 8B scores 0.292 blind, above every model but those two, purely by answering A to 92% of items.
The gate does select something real: on the items it rejected, eleven of twelve models score 0.518-0.789, every interval clear of what the same model scores on the items it kept. But that signal is one model's, and filtering on it does not transfer upward. Neither is visible on a 400-item sample, where nine models read as "statistically at chance". Rewriting distractors instead overshoots to 0.168, below chance and as exploitable. The same probe on LEXam returns chance: every option there points into the stem, none longer than 33 characters. Item format decides whether the problem can arise; capability decides how much is extracted. We release the corpus, the predictions and the harness.
Comments: 21 pages, 4 figures. Dataset, model predictions and code at this https URL
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.15428 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2608.15428v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.15428
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Volodymyr Ovcharov [view email]
[v1] Sat, 15 Aug 2026 22:11:00 UTC (32 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Gated Against One Model, Open to the Next: Option-Only Solvability in Legal Multiple-Choice Benchmarks, by Volodymyr Ovcharov
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language