Interpretive Canons (BVerfG) - Systematic Interpretation: leaderboard
Systematic interpretation from the interpretive-canons benchmark on decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Ringe, ICML 2026 AI4Law Workshop): does an argument rest on the place of the provision in the legal system. Positive-class F1 in percent on 120 held-out sentence pairs, with one expert-written prompt for every model; higher is better.
Metric: Positive-class F1 (%; systematic interpretation (systematik): whether the argument rests on the provision's place in the legal system, sentence-level binary classification in German Federal Constitutional Court decisions; expert-written prompt with worked examples (the same for every model), reasoning models at temperature 1.0; decision-disjoint held-out test split (60% of each subtask, 1:3 positives to negatives)). Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Around February 2027. 4 models tracked.
Top models
| # | Model | Score | Overall rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | 70.2 | #181 |
| 2 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | 63.5 | #254 |
| 3 | MiniMax-M3 | 55.6 | #265 |
| 4 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | 47.8 | #300 |
No result here: #1 Claude Fable 5.2, #2 Gemini 4 Carbon, #5 Claude Opus 5.5.
Interactive version: theaggregate.ai/benchmark?slug=interpretive-canons-bverfg-systematic-interpretation · How It Works · Data refreshed daily, snapshot 2026-11-12.