-
Lawma: The Power of Specialization for Legal Tasks
Authors:
Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo,
Vedant Nanda,
Rediet Abebe,
Stefan Bechtold,
Christoph Engel,
Jens Frankenreiter,
Krishna Gummadi,
Moritz Hardt,
Michael Livermore
Abstract:
Annotation and classification of legal text are central components of empirical legal research. Traditionally, these tasks are often delegated to trained research assistants. Motivated by the advances in language modeling, empirical legal scholars are increasingly turning to prompting commercial models, hoping that it will alleviate the significant cost of human annotation. Despite growing use, ou…
▽ More
Annotation and classification of legal text are central components of empirical legal research. Traditionally, these tasks are often delegated to trained research assistants. Motivated by the advances in language modeling, empirical legal scholars are increasingly turning to prompting commercial models, hoping that it will alleviate the significant cost of human annotation. Despite growing use, our understanding of how to best utilize large language models for legal tasks remains limited. We conduct a comprehensive study of 260 legal text classification tasks, nearly all new to the machine learning community. Starting from GPT-4 as a baseline, we show that it has non-trivial but highly varied zero-shot accuracy, often exhibiting performance that may be insufficient for legal work. We then demonstrate that a lightly fine-tuned Llama 3 model vastly outperforms GPT-4 on almost all tasks, typically by double-digit percentage points. We find that larger models respond better to fine-tuning than smaller models. A few tens to hundreds of examples suffice to achieve high classification accuracy. Notably, we can fine-tune a single model on all 260 tasks simultaneously at a small loss in accuracy relative to having a separate model for each task. Our work points to a viable alternative to the predominant practice of prompting commercial models. For concrete legal tasks with some available labeled data, researchers are better off using a fine-tuned open-source model.
△ Less
Submitted 23 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Training on the Test Task Confounds Evaluation and Emergence
Authors:
Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo,
Florian E. Dorner,
Moritz Hardt
Abstract:
We study a fundamental problem in the evaluation of large language models that we call training on the test task. Unlike wrongful practices like training on the test data, leakage, or data contamination, training on the test task is not a malpractice. Rather, the term describes a growing set of techniques to include task-relevant data in the pretraining stage of a language model. We demonstrate th…
▽ More
We study a fundamental problem in the evaluation of large language models that we call training on the test task. Unlike wrongful practices like training on the test data, leakage, or data contamination, training on the test task is not a malpractice. Rather, the term describes a growing set of techniques to include task-relevant data in the pretraining stage of a language model. We demonstrate that training on the test task confounds both relative model evaluations and claims about emergent capabilities. We argue that the seeming superiority of one model family over another may be explained by a different degree of training on the test task. To this end, we propose an effective method to adjust for training on the test task by fine-tuning each model under comparison on the same task-relevant data before evaluation. We then show that instances of emergent behavior largely vanish once we adjust for training on the test task. This also applies to reported instances of emergent behavior that cannot be explained by the choice of evaluation metric. Our work promotes a new perspective on the evaluation of large language models with broad implications for benchmarking and the study of emergent capabilities.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Questioning the Survey Responses of Large Language Models
Authors:
Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo,
Moritz Hardt,
Celestine Mendler-Dünner
Abstract:
As large language models increase in capability, researchers have started to conduct surveys of all kinds on these models in order to investigate the population represented by their responses. In this work, we critically examine language models' survey responses on the basis of the well-established American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau and investigate whether they elicit a faithful r…
▽ More
As large language models increase in capability, researchers have started to conduct surveys of all kinds on these models in order to investigate the population represented by their responses. In this work, we critically examine language models' survey responses on the basis of the well-established American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau and investigate whether they elicit a faithful representations of any human population. Using a de-facto standard multiple-choice prompting technique and evaluating 39 different language models using systematic experiments, we establish two dominant patterns: First, models' responses are governed by ordering and labeling biases, leading to variations across models that do not persist after adjusting for systematic biases. Second, models' responses do not contain the entropy variations and statistical signals typically found in human populations. As a result, a binary classifier can almost perfectly differentiate model-generated data from the responses of the U.S. census. At the same time, models' relative alignment with different demographic subgroups can be predicted from the subgroups' entropy, irrespective of the model's training data or training strategy. Taken together, our findings suggest caution in treating models' survey responses as equivalent to those of human populations.
△ Less
Submitted 28 February, 2024; v1 submitted 13 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
On the Adversarial Robustness of Causal Algorithmic Recourse
Authors:
Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo,
Amir-Hossein Karimi,
Bernhard Schölkopf
Abstract:
Algorithmic recourse seeks to provide actionable recommendations for individuals to overcome unfavorable classification outcomes from automated decision-making systems. Recourse recommendations should ideally be robust to reasonably small uncertainty in the features of the individual seeking recourse. In this work, we formulate the adversarially robust recourse problem and show that recourse metho…
▽ More
Algorithmic recourse seeks to provide actionable recommendations for individuals to overcome unfavorable classification outcomes from automated decision-making systems. Recourse recommendations should ideally be robust to reasonably small uncertainty in the features of the individual seeking recourse. In this work, we formulate the adversarially robust recourse problem and show that recourse methods that offer minimally costly recourse fail to be robust. We then present methods for generating adversarially robust recourse for linear and for differentiable classifiers. Finally, we show that regularizing the decision-making classifier to behave locally linearly and to rely more strongly on actionable features facilitates the existence of adversarially robust recourse.
△ Less
Submitted 13 June, 2022; v1 submitted 21 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
