Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

AI for Scaling Legal Reform: Mapping and Redacting Racial Covenants in Santa Clara County

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A $258 AI run finds 7,500 racial covenants in Santa Clara County deeds.

desk verdict Genuinely useful deployment paper, but the headline metrics come from a non-representative eval set and deployment recall is unmeasured; the contribution survives, the numbers need reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2503.03888 v2 pith:PU42URIM submitted 2025-02-12 cs.CL

Faiz Surani , Mirac Suzgun , Vyoma Raman , Christopher D. Manning , Peter Henderson , Daniel E. Ho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords racialcovenantslargelanguagemodelspropertydeedsSantaClaraCountyLoRAfine-tuninghousingdiscriminationAB1466legalreform
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a fine-tuned open large language model can find racially restrictive covenants in historical property deeds at a scale and cost that make statewide legal reform feasible. Working with Santa Clara County's Clerk-Recorder's Office, the authors built an OCR-to-text pipeline and finetuned a Mistral 7B model with LoRA, reporting precision of 1.0 and recall of 0.99 on a held-out evaluation suite of 739 deed pages. Running the model over 5.2 million pre-1980 deed pages cost about $258 in GPU rental, identified roughly 7,500 covenant deeds, and estimated savings of about 86,500 person-hours of manual review. The paper also uses geolocated results to document the history of housing discrimination, estimating that one in four Santa Clara County properties was subject to a racial covenant by 1950. If the accuracy and cost figures hold, the approach offers a template for the hundreds of jurisdictions required to scan their deed records.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a LoRA-finetuned Mistral 7B language model, where LoRA (low-rank adaptation) updates a small set of weight matrices rather than the full model. The model is fed OCR text from deed pages: docTR converts page images to text, the model classifies each page and, when positive, returns the exact covenant passage, and a confidence score based on the softmax of the 'yes' and 'no' tokens, thresholded at 75 percent, filters low-confidence predictions. A separate geolocation pipeline extracts map names and book-and-page references from deed text and matches them to county surveyor maps, which is what turns a document classifier into a map of housing discrimination.

What would settle it

Take a period-stratified random sample of 300 deed pages from 1940 to 1980 in Santa Clara County, have two independent legal annotators label them for racial covenants, and run the released model at the 75 percent confidence threshold with the fair-housing filter. If precision on that sample falls below 95 percent, or recall falls below the claimed 0.99, the deployment-time accuracy claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a 7-billion-parameter open language model, finetuned with low-rank adaptation on 3,801 annotated deed pages, can outperform keyword search, fuzzy matching, and zero- or few-shot prompting of an off-the-shelf closed model in detecting racial covenants. On the paper's own evaluation set it achieves perfect precision and 99.4 percent recall, with a span-level BLEU of 0.932, and it runs for a fraction of the cost of a proprietary API. The authors go on to show that the model's outputs can be integrated into a legally required human review workflow, with county counsel confirming more than 4,500 of the identified covenants, and that the resulting dataset reveals sharp geographic clustering and the outsized role of about ten developers. Their population-level estimate is that by 1950 one in four properties in the county was encumbered by a racial covenant.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation set that produced the precision-1.0 and recall-0.99 numbers contains only pre-1940s Santa Clara County deeds, while the deployed scan covers 1902 to 1980, so the reported accuracy may not hold for the later documents unless the confidence threshold and fair-housing filter fix the drift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Counties facing AB 1466-style mandates can complete a full deed sweep without years of manual review; the paper estimates roughly 86,500 person-hours saved for Santa Clara County's 5.2 million pre-1980 pages.
  • Open-weight models make comprehensive deed scanning economical; the paper's comparison puts the full county run at $258, under 2 percent of the cost of an off-the-shelf closed model.
  • The roughly 7,500 identified covenant deeds, once geolocated, produce the paper's historical findings: one in four properties covered by 1950, ten developers responsible for about a third of covenants, and continued use after Shelley v. Kraemer.
  • Releasing the fine-tuned model and review interface gives other jurisdictions a starting point, provided they validate on their own records as the paper recommends.
  • The county's redaction workflow retains an unredacted registry, so removing discriminatory language from active records does not erase the historical evidence.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the same pipeline should extend to other discriminatory restrictions, such as religion, family status, or national origin, because the paper already reports surfacing a family-status covenant and few-shot prompting or further finetuning would likely retrieve those with the same architecture.
  • Editorial inference: a period-stratified audit of 1960s and 1970s deeds would likely show lower precision than the headline 1.0, since the evaluation set is pre-1940s and the paper itself documents fair-housing false positives in later documents.
  • Editorial inference: OCR quality, not model quality, is the binding constraint for older records; the paper excludes pre-1902 handwritten deeds for lack of effective OCR, so better handwriting recognition would extend coverage backward in time.
  • Editorial inference: the approximately $258 cost and under-2-percent comparison are time-bound to current GPU rental and API prices, though the qualitative advantage of open models at this scale should persist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper describes an academic-government partnership that built an OCR plus language-model pipeline to detect racially restrictive covenants in Santa Clara County's pre-1980 deed records. The authors fine-tune Mistral 7B with LoRA and report page-level precision 1.000 and recall 0.994 on a held-out set of 739 annotated pages, compare against keyword and GPT-3.5 baselines, and estimate that running the pipeline over 5.2 million pages costs $258 and saves 86,500 person-hours of manual review. Using the detector's outputs, geolocation, and census data, the paper estimates roughly 7,500 covenant deeds and that one in four 1950 properties were covered by racial covenants, and it derives historical, geographic, and developer-level findings. The paper also documents the integration of the model into the county's AB 1466 redaction workflow and states that the model and review interface will be released.

Significance. If the performance claims held up, this would be a significant contribution: a concrete, deployed demonstration that fine-tuned open LLMs can reduce the cost of legal-record review by orders of magnitude, plus a population-scale quantitative map of racial covenants. The partnership details, the random-sample deployment precision check (200 positives, 96.4-99.7% CI), the manual verification of geolocations on a 50-document sample, and the transparent discussion of deployment false positives are genuine strengths. The manuscript is also careful in Section 8 to list directional biases in the prevalence estimate. However, the central evaluation claim is currently not supported by the evidence as presented, because the evaluation set does not represent the deployment corpus and deployment recall is unmeasured; the historical and prevalence findings inherit that gap. The contribution remains valuable, and the gap is addressable with additional validation rather than being fatal to the approach.

major comments (4)
  1. [5.2 / Table 2 and Section 6] The headline evaluation is not representative of the deployment population. The 739-page evaluation set described in Section 5.2 is drawn from the annotation pool constructed in Section 3.3, which began with 3,000 keyword-selected pages and then added model predictions and hard negatives; about 70% of the evaluation pages contain covenants, whereas the full corpus has fewer than 2 per 1,000. Section 6 further states that the Santa Clara County evaluation documents were 'exclusively pre-1940s' while the deployed system processes 5.2 million pages from 1902 to 1980, and that later-period documents produced fair-housing false positives requiring a post hoc confidence threshold and a 'fair housing' filter. The deployment precision estimate from 200 sampled positives (96.4-99.7%) is a useful check, but deployment recall was never measured. Therefore the abstract's 'precision of 1.0 and a recall of 0.99' and the downstream 7,500-deed count are not supported as estimates for the full corpus.
  2. [4.2 and Section 6] The 75% confidence threshold was chosen on the same evaluation set used to report the headline metrics. Section 4.2 says the threshold was 'empirically determined' and that the Section 5.1 results are computed at that threshold; because the same 739 pages were used for threshold selection and for the reported precision/recall, the numbers in Table 2 are selection-optimized. Section 6 then changes the operating point again at deployment by adding the 75% threshold and a 'fair housing' filter, without measuring recall on a sample from the deployment distribution. The paper should either use a separate validation set for threshold selection or present the metrics as conditional on the tuning set, and it should add a deployment recall estimate on a stratified random sample.
  3. [8] The estimate that one in four properties were covered by a racial covenant in 1950 inherits the unmeasured recall error described above. The count of 24,522 lots is built from detector outputs for neighborhood-wide declarations (412 manually confirmed), multi-lot deeds (1,293, of which only 20 units were verified according to the footnote), and single-lot deeds; no sensitivity analysis varies the detector's recall or the classification of multi-lot deeds. The manuscript lists directional biases that could move the estimate up or down, but a quantitative lower/upper bound or confidence interval is needed for the headline prevalence claim.
  4. [7.3] The historical periodization, including the 'near 75% decrease' after Shelley and the persistence of covenants after 1948, compares detector counts across decades. Because detection recall is unvalidated outside the pre-1940s Santa Clara evaluation documents, and later-period documents are known to contain different language (e.g., fair-housing covenants), the observed drop could partly reflect a decline in detection sensitivity rather than a decline in covenant usage. A stratified recall evaluation by decade is required before these historical conclusions are stated as results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [3.2] The text says the external data came from 'seven counties' but then lists six counties (Bexar, Cuyahoga, Denton, Franklin, Hidalgo, and Lawrence); please correct the count or add the missing county.
  2. [Appendix E] Appendix E states that the total cost for an off-the-shelf LLM would be 'roughly $30,000,' but Table 1 reports $13,634 for GPT-3.5 few-shot and $47,944 for GPT-4 Turbo; please reconcile these numbers.
  3. [1 and 7] The phrase 'one in four properties the county were covered' is missing the word 'in' in both Section 1 and Section 7's opening; also 'Mistral 7B parameter open source model' should read 'Mistral 7B-parameter open source model.'
  4. [Table 3] The column header 'Native White' is ambiguous; the table appears to report 'White' and 'Native American' as separate columns, and the 1980 'Others' spike is explained only in the caption; please clarify the column labels in the header.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is evaluated on held-out human annotations and the downstream historical/cost claims rest on external data sources, not on the model's own fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical chain is not circular. The finetuned Mistral detector is trained on one portion of the human-annotated deed set and evaluated on a held-out 739-page subset, with precision, recall, F1, and BLEU reported directly from that held-out comparison. The claimed operational savings (86,500 person-hours, $258 cost) are computed from stated throughput and cloud-pricing assumptions in Appendix E, not from the detector's own outputs. The historical findings depend on model predictions, but the key downstream quantities are separately anchored: the roughly 7,500 covenant deeds are a model-output count later checked by sampling 200 positives, and the 'one in four properties by 1950' estimate is built from lot counts derived from surveyor's maps, manual confirmation of the 412 neighborhood-wide covenants, and U.S. Census dwelling-unit totals. Several author-team self-citations appear (e.g., Magesh et al., 2024, for LLM hallucination; Engstrom et al., 2020, for government AI), but none carries a load-bearing mathematical or empirical claim that reduces to the paper's own result. The evaluation-set composition concerns raised by the reader are real external-validity limitations, not circularity: a keyword-enriched, pre-1940-dominated evaluation set can overstate deployment performance on later-period documents, but the paper does not define its performance metric in terms of the deployment outputs or fit a parameter and then relabel that parameter as a prediction. The paper even discloses the later-period false positives and separately estimates deployment precision from a fresh random sample, which is the opposite of hiding the input-output equivalence. Therefore, no step in the derivation chain is equivalent by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the fidelity of OCR, the accuracy of human labels, the representativeness of the evaluation set, and the validity of deed-to-map-to-property matching. These are standard domain assumptions for applied document analysis; none is circular, but the evaluation-set representativeness is the most fragile and is partially contradicted by the paper's own later-period false positives.

free parameters (2)
  • confidence_threshold = 0.75
    Set to the value that gave best performance on the evaluation set (Section 4.2) and then applied to all deployment outputs (Section 6). This is a data-fitted cut that determines which model predictions count as covenants.
  • fuzzy_keyword_threshold = 0.75
    Cosine similarity threshold for fuzzy keyword matching (Section 4.2), chosen by hand; affects the baseline comparison, not the main fine-tuned model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption OCR text is a sufficient representation of the deed page content for covenant detection
    The whole pipeline starts from docTR OCR output; the paper shows OCR errors and relies on the model to be robust to them (Appendices B, and Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Human annotations constitute ground truth for what a racial covenant is
    3,801 pages labeled by CloudFactory and the authors are used both for training and for the reported precision/recall numbers (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption The evaluation set is representative of the full 5.2 million page corpus
    The headline precision/recall is measured on 739 pages, with all Santa Clara County evaluation documents from before the 1940s; Section 6 reports false positives in later-period documents, so this assumption is partially violated.
  • domain assumption Recorded deed references to surveyor maps can be matched to present-day geography
    Geolocation and the lot-count prevalence estimate depend on fuzzy map matching against Surveyor's Office records and ArcGIS (Section 4.4, Section 8).
  • domain assumption Census dwelling-unit counts are commensurate with 'properties' for the prevalence denominator
    The one-in-four estimate divides a deduplicated lot count by total 1940 and 1950 Census dwelling units (Section 8).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI for Scaling Legal Reform: Mapping and Redacting Racial Covenants in Santa Clara County." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PU42URIM

@misc{pith2026250303888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI for Scaling Legal Reform: Mapping and Redacting Racial Covenants in Santa Clara County},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PU42URIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2503.03888}
}
read the original abstract

Legal reform can be challenging in light of the volume, complexity, and interdependence of laws, codes, and records. One salient example of this challenge is the effort to restrict and remove racially restrictive covenants, clauses in property deeds that historically barred individuals of specific races from purchasing homes. Despite the Supreme Court holding such racial covenants unenforceable in 1948, they persist in property records across the United States. Many jurisdictions have moved to identify and strike these provisions, including California, which mandated in 2021 that all counties implement such a process. Yet the scale can be overwhelming, with Santa Clara County (SCC) alone having over 24 million property deed documents, making purely manual review infeasible. We present a novel approach to addressing this pressing issue, developed through a partnership with the SCC Clerk-Recorder's Office. First, we leverage an open large language model, finetuned to detect racial covenants with high precision and recall. We estimate that this system reduces manual efforts by 86,500 person hours and costs less than 2% of the cost for a comparable off-the-shelf closed model. Second, we illustrate the County's integration of this model into responsible operational practice, including legal review and the creation of a historical registry, and release our model to assist the hundreds of jurisdictions engaged in similar efforts. Finally, our results reveal distinct periods of utilization of racial covenants, sharp geographic clustering, and the disproportionate role of a small number of developers in maintaining housing discrimination. We estimate that by 1950, one in four properties across the County were subject to racial covenants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.03888 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Although racially restrictive covenants are no longer legally enforceable and are considered illegal under the Fair Housing Act today, they still exist in thousands, possibly even millions, of historical property records in California. One such example, found in a 1940 real property deed from Santa Clara County’s archives, contains the following discriminatory language: “No persons not of the Caucasian Race shall be… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Brief overview of legal developments that impacted California’s housing market in the 20th century. The Rumford Act was overturned by Proposition 14, which was in turn found unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in Mulkey v. Reitman, 64 Cal. 2d 529 (1966). covenants were often marketed as desirable features in new suburban developments, which promoted “restricted” neighborhoods as more valuable, secure, a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram of our pipeline for detecting racial covenants. The process begins by converting an image of a property deed into text using an OCR tool (docTR). The transcribed text is then analyzed for racially discriminatory language. If such unlawful language is found, the system highlights the content and extracts the property address. Both the highlighted language and the corresponding address are sent then to Santa C… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of location information in a 1916 property deed. Crucially, we can extract the name of the map which depicts the property, as well as the book and page number on which the map appears. Other useful data, such as the names of the parties and the exact date on wh…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: False positive and false negative predictions from each detection approach considered in our study. These examples show typical OCR errors present in our pipeline. Efficiency. We then compare the costs of the different approaches for processing all 5.2 million Santa Cl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This workflow diagram depicts the multi-step process undertaken by the Restrictive Covenant Modification Program (RECOMP) in Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder’s Office to identify, review, and remove RRCs from real property deeds. The process begins when CRO locates a …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Clusters of racial covenants on a map of modern-day Santa Clara County. Some of the largest and most notable racially restricted developments – discussed in this section – are shown in red. Bottom left: Racial covenants in south Palo Alto and Mountain View. Bottom…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 1913 housing advertisement for the Palm Haven neighborhood in San Jose. 1913 is several years before Buchanan found “restricted districts” based on race unconstitutional, and the advertisement emphasizes the “restricted district[].” Palm Haven construction dates stradd…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Density of properties with racial covenants in modern-day Census tracts in 1905, 1920, 1935, and 1950. Racial covenants are plotted cumulatively. Racial covenants are initially concentrated in modern-day Palo Alto and San Jose, but spread throughout the county between …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Number of property deeds with restrictive covenants from 1905–1974, divided by whether specific racial groups were excluded or only white/Caucasian individuals were permitted. Most pre-1915 covenants specifically exclude Black and Asian individuals, but the vast …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Assessor’s map for Southgate neighborhood in Palo Alto from 1923. The entire neighborhood of then-196 homes is covered by one racial covenant from the Palo Alto Development Company, which would go on to sell individual properties. To estimate the total number of prope…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Excerpt from a 1908 property deed scan, illustrating challenges for OCR: low resolution, smudged characters, and visual artifacts. 65For instance, AB 1466 places obligations on a title company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate agent, or association to n…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Real property deeds from Santa Clara County (from 1908), with several visible scanning artifacts. Historical property deeds prior to the late 20th century are typically typewritten and vary widely in text and scan quality. As such, OCR is a non-trivial problem for the…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Input and output template used in the finetuning of our Mistral 7B model. D Annotation App [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Screenshot of the app used to label data for training our racial covenant detectors. The interface allows labelers to modify or reverse the initial annotation of the model with respect to the on-page bounding box, text span, and cleaned up quotation. 32 [PITH_FULL_IM…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Density of properties with racial covenants in modern-day Census tracts in 1905, 1920, 1935, and 1950. This figure includes the more rural tracts in the south and east of the County. 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Distribution of lots covered by racial covenants in Santa Clara County. Top: Overview of the entire county. Bottom left: Racial covenants in south Palo Alto and Mountain View. Bottom right: Racial covenants in downtown San Jose. Dots represent individual subdivisions …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Density of lots covered by racial covenants in modern-day Census tracts in 1905, 1920, 1935, and 1950. Lots are plotted cumulatively. This figure shows the spread of racial covenants throughout the county between 1905 and 1950, with the number of affected lots as the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Ashley Bakelmun and Sarah Jane Shoenfeld. 2019. Open data and racial segregation: Mapping the historic imprint of racial covenants and redlining on american cities. In Open Cities| Open Data: Collaborative Cities in the Information Era, pages 57--83. Springer

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Richard R W Brooks. 2011. Covenants without courts: enforcing residential segregation with legally unenforceable agreements. American Economic Review, 101(3):360--365

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Richard R. W. Brooks and Carol M. Rose. 2013. Saving the Neighborhood: Racially Restrictive Covenants, Law, and Social Norms . Harvard University Press

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, pages 77--91. PMLR

    2018

  7. [7]

    California State Legislature . 2021. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1466/id/2434855 California Assembly Bill No. 1466 (AB 1466) , Real property: discriminatory restrictions

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    City Roots Community Land Trust and Yale Environmental Protection Clinic . 2020. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/clinic/document/2020.7.31_-_confronting_racial_covenants_-_yale.city_roots_guide.pdf Confronting Racial Covenants: How They Segregated Monroe County and What to Do About Them

    work page 2020

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Ho, Catherine Sharkey, and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar

    David Freeman Engstrom, Daniel E. Ho, Catherine Sharkey, and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar. 2020. https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Government Administrative Conference of the United States

    2020

  2. [10]

    Jeffrey D Gonda. 2015. Unjust deeds: The restrictive covenant cases and the making of the civil rights movement. UNC Press Books

    2015

  3. [11]

    Kevin Fox Gotham. 2000. Urban space, restrictive covenants and the origins of racial residential segregation in a US city, 1900--50. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(3):616--633

    2000

  4. [12]

    Mary L Gray and Siddharth Suri. 2019. Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Eamon Dolan Books

    2019

  5. [13]

    Eunice Grier and George Grier. 1960. Privately Developed Interracial Housing: An Analysis of Experience. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    1960

  6. [14]

    April Hope Halberstadt. 1997. The Willow Glen Neighborhood: Then and Now . Renacsi

    1997

  7. [15]

    Lexi Purich Howard. 2021. California swings for the fences to strike racially restrictive covenants from the public record. California Real Property Law Journal, 39(4)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Ocean Howell. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1525/phr.2016.85.3.379 The Merchant Crusaders: Eichler Homes and Fair Housing, 1949–1974 . Pacific Historical Review, 85(3):379--407

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.09685 LoRA : Low - Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2106.09685 [cs]

    2021 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas ...

    2023 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Michael Jones-Correa. 2000. The origins and diffusion of racial restrictive covenants. Political Science Quarterly, 115(4):541--568

    2000

  12. [20]

    Ho, Percy Liang, and Arvind Narayanan

    Sayash Kapoor, Rishi Bommasani, Kevin Klyman, Shayne Longpre, Ashwin Ramaswami, Peter Cihon, Aspen K Hopkins, Kevin Bankston, Stella Biderman, Miranda Bogen, Rumman Chowdhury, Alex Engler, Peter Henderson, Yacine Jernite, Seth Lazar, Stefano Maffulli, Alondra Nelson, Joelle Pi...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Steve Kelman. 1990. Procurement and public management. Technical report, American Enterprise Institute

    1990

  14. [22]

    Paul Pu Liang, Chiyu Wu, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2021. Towards understanding and mitigating social biases in language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6565--6576. PMLR

    2021

  15. [23]

    Minghui Liao, Zhaoyi Wan, Cong Yao, Kai Chen, and Xiang Bai. 2020. Real-time scene text detection with differentiable binarization. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 11474--11481

    2020

  16. [24]

    Varun Magesh, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun, Christopher D Manning, and Daniel E Ho. 2024. Hallucination-free? A ssessing the reliability of leading AI legal research tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20362

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mapping Prejudice Project . 2022. https://mappingprejudice.umn.edu/racial-covenants/what-is-a-covenant What is a Covenant?

    2022

  18. [26]

    Olivia Martin, Faiz Surani, Kit Rodolfa, Amy Perez, and Daniel E. Ho. 2024. The Spectrum of AI Integration : The Case of Benefits Adjudication . In Cynthia H. Cwik, Christopher A. Suarez, and Lucy L. Thomson, editors, AI : Legal Issues , Policy , and Practical Strategies . Ame...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Mindee. 2021. doctr: Document text recognition. https://github.com/mindee/doctr

    2021

  20. [28]

    William R Ming. 1949. Racial restrictions and the fourteenth amendment: The restrictive covenant cases. The University of Chicago Law Review, 16(2):203--238

    1949

  21. [29]

    Jennifer Pahlka. 2023. Recoding America: why government is failing in the digital age and how we can do better. Metropolitan Books

    2023

  22. [30]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311--318

    2002

  23. [31]

    Jonathan G Pray. 2005. Congressional reporting requirements: Testing the limits of the oversight power. U. Colo. L. Rev., 76:297

    2005

  24. [32]

    Laura Redford. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538513216676191 The intertwined history of class and race segregation in los angeles . Journal of Planning History, 16(4):305--322

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Loren Rhoads. 2018. https://cemeterytravel.com/2018/05/19/cemetery-of-the-week-167-oak-hill-memorial-park/ Cemetery of the Week \#167: Oak Hill Memorial Park

    2018

  26. [34]

    Anna Rohrbach, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Kaylee Burns, Trevor Darrell, and Kate Saenko. 2018. Object hallucination in image captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02156

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Florence Wagman Roisman. 2022. Stumbling stones at levittown: What to do about racial covenants in the united states. Journal of Affordable Housing Volume, 30(3)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Carol M Rose. 2022. Property law and inequality: Lessons from racially restrictive convenants. Nw. UL Rev., 117:225

    2022

  29. [37]

    Carol M Rose. 2024. General customs and legal institutions: The short, sad example of racially restrictive covenants in the United States . In Samuel L. Bray, John CP Goldberg, Paul B. Miller, and Henry E. Smith, editors, Interstitial Private Law. Oxford University Press

    2024

  30. [38]

    Carol M Rose, Richard RW Brooks, A Brown, and V Smith. 2016. Racial Covenants and Housing Segregation, Yesterday and Today . Race and Real Estate, pages 161--76

    2016

  31. [39]

    Richard Rothstein. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government egregated America . Liveright Publishing

    2017

  32. [40]

    Larry Santucci. 2020. Documenting Racially Restrictive Covenants in 20th Century Philadelphia . Cityscape, 22(3):241--268

    2020

  33. [41]

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2014. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    US Census Bureau . 1942. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1942/dec/population-vol-1.html 1940 Census of Population : Volume 1. Number of Inhabitants . Total Population for States , Counties , and Minor Civil Divisions ; for Urban and Rural Areas ; for Incorporated P...

    1942

  35. [43]

    Clement E Vose. 1967. Caucasians only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the restrictive covenant cases. Univ of California Press

    1967

  36. [44]

    KL Wagstaff. 2012. Machine learning that matters. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2012, pages 529--536

    2012

  37. [45]

    Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao, James T Kwok, and Lionel M Ni. 2020. Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning. ACM computing surveys (csur), 53(3):1--34

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.