arXiv (All)
open access
Right Number, Wrong State? Measuring Cross-Jurisdiction Substitution in LLM Recall of State Policy
When an LLM answers a state-specific policy question wrongly, it may be hallucinating, or it may be returning a real value that holds in another state. We test this with a minimal-set design: the question wording is fixed and only the jurisdiction varies, across the 50 U.S. states and the District o
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- 16 U.S.C. § 204 — Exclusive jurisdiction ceded to United States by California#572571
- Territorial Jurisdiction: A Functionalist Account#99874
- A "Progressive Contraction of Jurisdiction": The Making of the Modern Supreme Court#494962
- Near-Feasible Stable Matchings: Incentives and Optimality#924507
- Near-Feasible Stable Matchings: Incentives and Optimality#920276
Record · ID 1233497
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive