FLawN-T5: An Empirical Examination of Effective Instruction-Tuning Data Mixtures for Legal Reasoning

Instruction tuning is an important step in making language models useful for direct user interaction. However, many legal tasks remain out of reach for most open LLMs and there do not yet exist any large scale instruction datasets for the domain. This critically limits research in this application area. In this work, we curate LawInstruct, a large legal instruction dataset, covering 17 jurisdictions, 24 languages and a total of 12M examples. We present evidence that domain-specific pretraining and instruction tuning improve performance on LegalBench, including improving Flan-T5 XL by 8 points or 16\% over the baseline. However, the effect does not generalize across all tasks, training regimes, model sizes, and other factors. LawInstruct is a resource for accelerating the development of models with stronger information processing and decision making capabilities in the legal domain.

On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models

Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g. Llama 2, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g. greater customizability, poor monitoring) of open foundation models that lead to both their benefits and risks. Open foundation models present significant benefits, with some caveats, that span innovation, competition, the distribution of decision-making power, and transparency. To understand their risks of misuse, we design a risk assessment framework for analyzing their marginal risk. Across several misuse vectors (e.g. cyberattacks, bioweapons), we find that current research is insufficient to effectively characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies. The framework helps explain why the marginal risk is low in some cases, clarifies disagreements about misuse risks by revealing that past work has focused on different subsets of the framework with different assumptions, and articulates a way forward for more constructive debate. Overall, our work helps support a more grounded assessment of the societal impact of open foundation models by outlining what research is needed to empirically validate their theoretical benefits and risks.

How well do LLMs cite relevant medical references? An evaluation framework and analyses

Large language models (LLMs) are currently being used to answer medical questions across a variety of clinical domains. Recent top-performing commercial LLMs, in particular, are also capable of citing sources to support their responses. In this paper, we ask: do the sources that LLMs generate actually support the claims that they make? To answer this, we propose three contributions. First, as expert medical annotations are an expensive and time-consuming bottleneck for scalable evaluation, we demonstrate that GPT-4 is highly accurate in validating source relevance, agreeing 88% of the time with a panel of medical doctors. Second, we develop an end-to-end, automated pipeline called \textit{SourceCheckup} and use it to evaluate five top-performing LLMs on a dataset of 1200 generated questions, totaling over 40K pairs of statements and sources. Interestingly, we find that between ~50% to 90% of LLM responses are not fully supported by the sources they provide. We also evaluate GPT-4 with retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and find that, even still, around 30\% of individual statements are unsupported, while nearly half of its responses are not fully supported. Third, we open-source our curated dataset of medical questions and expert annotations for future evaluations. Given the rapid pace of LLM development and the potential harms of incorrect or outdated medical information, it is crucial to also understand and quantify their capability to produce relevant, trustworthy medical references.

Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform the practice of law, but this potential is threatened by the presence of legal hallucinations -- responses from these models that are not consistent with legal facts. We investigate the extent of these hallucinations using an original suite of legal queries, comparing LLMs' responses to structured legal metadata and examining their consistency. Our work makes four key contributions: (1) We develop a typology of legal hallucinations, providing a conceptual framework for future research in this area. (2) We find that legal hallucinations are alarmingly prevalent, occurring between 69% of the time with ChatGPT 3.5 and 88% with Llama 2, when these models are asked specific, verifiable questions about random federal court cases. (3) We illustrate that LLMs often fail to correct a user's incorrect legal assumptions in a contra-factual question setup. (4) We provide evidence that LLMs cannot always predict, or do not always know, when they are producing legal hallucinations. Taken together, these findings caution against the rapid and unsupervised integration of popular LLMs into legal tasks. Even experienced lawyers must remain wary of legal hallucinations, and the risks are highest for those who stand to benefit from LLMs the most -- pro se litigants or those without access to traditional legal resources.

Estimating and Implementing Conventional Fairness Metrics With Probabilistic Protected Features

The vast majority of techniques to train fair models require access to the protected attribute (e.g., race, gender), either at train time or in production. However, in many important applications this protected attribute is largely unavailable. In this paper, we develop methods for measuring and reducing fairness violations in a setting with limited access to protected attribute labels. Specifically, we assume access to protected attribute labels on a small subset of the dataset of interest, but only probabilistic estimates of protected attribute labels (e.g., via Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding) for the rest of the dataset. With this setting in mind, we propose a method to estimate bounds on common fairness metrics for an existing model, as well as a method for training a model to limit fairness violations by solving a constrained non-convex optimization problem. Unlike similar existing approaches, our methods take advantage of contextual information -- specifically, the relationships between a model's predictions and the probabilistic prediction of protected attributes, given the true protected attribute, and vice versa -- to provide tighter bounds on the true disparity. We provide an empirical illustration of our methods using voting data. First, we show our measurement method can bound the true disparity up to 5.5x tighter than previous methods in these applications. Then, we demonstrate that our training technique effectively reduces disparity while incurring lesser fairness-accuracy trade-offs than other fair optimization methods with limited access to protected attributes.

Toward Operationalizing Pipeline-aware ML Fairness: A Research Agenda for Developing Practical Guidelines and Tools

While algorithmic fairness is a thriving area of research, in practice, mitigating issues of bias often gets reduced to enforcing an arbitrarily chosen fairness metric, either by enforcing fairness constraints during the optimization step, post-processing model outputs, or by manipulating the training data. Recent work has called on the ML community to take a more holistic approach to tackle fairness issues by systematically investigating the many design choices made through the ML pipeline, and identifying interventions that target the issue's root cause, as opposed to its symptoms. While we share the conviction that this pipeline-based approach is the most appropriate for combating algorithmic unfairness on the ground, we believe there are currently very few methods of \emph{operationalizing} this approach in practice. Drawing on our experience as educators and practitioners, we first demonstrate that without clear guidelines and toolkits, even individuals with specialized ML knowledge find it challenging to hypothesize how various design choices influence model behavior. We then consult the fair-ML literature to understand the progress to date toward operationalizing the pipeline-aware approach: we systematically collect and organize the prior work that attempts to detect, measure, and mitigate various sources of unfairness through the ML pipeline. We utilize this extensive categorization of previous contributions to sketch a research agenda for the community. We hope this work serves as the stepping stone toward a more comprehensive set of resources for ML researchers, practitioners, and students interested in exploring, designing, and testing pipeline-oriented approaches to algorithmic fairness.

LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models

The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning -- which distinguish between its many forms -- correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables.

SCALE: Scaling up the Complexity for Advanced Language Model Evaluation

Recent strides in Large Language Models (LLMs) have saturated many NLP benchmarks (even professional domain-specific ones), emphasizing the need for novel, more challenging novel ones to properly assess LLM capabilities. In this paper, we introduce a novel NLP benchmark that poses challenges to current LLMs across four key dimensions: processing long documents (up to 50K tokens), utilizing domain specific knowledge (embodied in legal texts), multilingual understanding (covering five languages), and multitasking (comprising legal document to document Information Retrieval, Court View Generation, Leading Decision Summarization, Citation Extraction, and eight challenging Text Classification tasks). Our benchmark comprises diverse legal NLP datasets from the Swiss legal system, allowing for a comprehensive study of the underlying Non-English, inherently multilingual, federal legal system. Despite recent advances, efficiently processing long documents for intense review/analysis tasks remains an open challenge for language models. Also, comprehensive, domain-specific benchmarks requiring high expertise to develop are rare, as are multilingual benchmarks. This scarcity underscores our contribution's value, considering most public models are trained predominantly on English corpora, while other languages remain understudied, particularly for practical domain-specific NLP tasks. Our benchmark allows for testing and advancing the state-of-the-art LLMs. As part of our study, we evaluate several pre-trained multilingual language models on our benchmark to establish strong baselines as a point of reference. Despite the large size of our datasets (tens to hundreds of thousands of examples), existing publicly available models struggle with most tasks, even after in-domain pretraining. We publish all resources (benchmark suite, pre-trained models, code) under a fully permissive open CC BY-SA license.

MultiLegalPile: A 689GB Multilingual Legal Corpus

Large, high-quality datasets are crucial for training Large Language Models (LLMs). However, so far, there are few datasets available for specialized critical domains such as law and the available ones are often only for the English language. We curate and release MultiLegalPile, a 689GB corpus in 24 languages from 17 jurisdictions. The MultiLegalPile corpus, which includes diverse legal data sources with varying licenses, allows for pretraining NLP models under fair use, with more permissive licenses for the Eurlex Resources and Legal mC4 subsets. We pretrain two RoBERTa models and one Longformer multilingually, and 24 monolingual models on each of the language-specific subsets and evaluate them on LEXTREME. Additionally, we evaluate the English and multilingual models on LexGLUE. Our multilingual models set a new SotA on LEXTREME and our English models on LexGLUE. We release the dataset, the trained models, and all of the code under the most open possible licenses.

LegalBench: Prototyping a Collaborative Benchmark for Legal Reasoning

Can foundation models be guided to execute tasks involving legal reasoning? We believe that building a benchmark to answer this question will require sustained collaborative efforts between the computer science and legal communities. To that end, this short paper serves three purposes. First, we describe how IRAC-a framework legal scholars use to distinguish different types of legal reasoning-can guide the construction of a Foundation Model oriented benchmark. Second, we present a seed set of 44 tasks built according to this framework. We discuss initial findings, and highlight directions for new tasks. Finally-inspired by the Open Science movement-we make a call for the legal and computer science communities to join our efforts by contributing new tasks. This work is ongoing, and our progress can be tracked here: https://github.com/HazyResearch/legalbench.