生成式缺口填补
Generative Gap Filling
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
该研究通过实验发现合同缺失条款可被普通受访者、法学从业者及大型语言模型准确预测，提出真正的合同缺口比假设更少，法院可将模型预测作为证据，当事人可通过「模型选择」条款规范实践。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
大多数合同诉讼的核心在于合同未能完整记录双方的交易约定。当双方的争议无法通过文本解释解决时，法院会进行缺口填补。长期以来，学者们一直认为剩余的合同文本很快就会用完，且对争议点的实际交易仅提供薄弱证据。按照这一观点，提供缺失条款的法官必须依赖其他因素，从商业默认规则到自身的政策偏好。尽管经过了几代人的研究，法院仍没有真正的替代方法来应对这种不规范的做法。我们对这一假设进行了检验：我们选取真实合同，隐藏双方已协商好的某一条款，要求受访者预测我们删除的内容。普通受访者能在约一半的情况下恢复隐藏条款，这一概率是随机猜测的两倍；法学学生和律师的表现略好；而仅给定合同其余部分的大型语言模型（large language models）恢复该条款的概率接近九成。简言之，该交易表明协议的内容比文献所假设的要多得多，包括双方从未写入的条款。我们认为，合同就像来自远方的无线电信号，即使不完整，信息也会通过其他渠道传递足够多的内容，使得缺失部分可通过合适的接收设备重构。真正的缺口比人们认为的要少，法院可将模型预测作为普通的、可争议的证据进行权衡，各方还可通过「模型选择」条款来规范这一实践。
英文摘要
Most contract litigation turns on contracts that imperfectly record parties' bargains. When the parties' dispute can't be solved by interpreting the text, courts fill the gap. Scholars have long assumed that the remaining text runs out quickly, and provides thin evidence of the actual deal on the disputed point. On that view, a judge who supplies the missing term must be drawing on something else, from commercial defaults to her own policy preferences. Despite generations of work, courts have no real alternative to such unruly methods. We tested that assumption. Taking real contracts, we masked a term the parties had negotiated and asked readers to predict what we removed. Lay respondents recovered the hidden term about half the time, twice what chance predicts. Law students and lawyers did marginally better. But large language models, given nothing but the rest of the contract, recovered it nearly nine times in ten. The deal, in short, testifies to far more of the agreement than the literature assumes, including terms the parties never wrote. A contract, we argue, is like a radio signal from far away. Even when incomplete, enough of the message is carried elsewhere that the missing part can be reconstructed with the right receiver. True gaps are rarer than supposed. Courts can weigh model predictions as ordinary, contestable evidence, and parties can discipline the practice with "Choice of Model" clauses.
发表机构
- The University of Alabama（阿拉巴马大学）
- University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law（宾夕法尼亚大学凯里法学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。
