We present the Legal Passage Retrieval Dataset LePaRD. LePaRD is a massive collection of U.S. federal judicial citations to precedent in context. The dataset aims to facilitate work on legal passage prediction, a challenging practice-oriented legal retrieval and reasoning task. Legal passage prediction seeks to predict relevant passages from precedential court decisions given the context of a legal argument. We extensively evaluate various retrieval approaches on LePaRD, and find that classification appears to work best. However, we note that legal precedent prediction is a difficult task, and there remains significant room for improvement. We hope that by publishing LePaRD, we will encourage others to engage with a legal NLP task that promises to help expand access to justice by reducing the burden associated with legal research. A subset of the LePaRD dataset is freely available and the whole dataset will be released upon publication.

With the increasing integration of frontier large language models (LLMs) into society and the economy, decisions related to their training, deployment, and use have far-reaching implications. These decisions should not be left solely in the hands of frontier LLM developers. LLM users, civil society and policymakers need trustworthy sources of information to steer such decisions for the better. Involving outside actors in the evaluation of these systems - what we term "external scrutiny" - via red-teaming, auditing, and external researcher access, offers a solution. Though there are encouraging signs of increasing external scrutiny of frontier LLMs, its success is not assured. In this paper, we survey six requirements for effective external scrutiny of frontier AI systems and organize them under the ASPIRE framework: Access, Searching attitude, Proportionality to the risks, Independence, Resources, and Expertise. We then illustrate how external scrutiny might function throughout the AI lifecycle and offer recommendations to policymakers.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has attracted much attention to value alignment for their responsible development. However, how to define values in this context remains a largely unexplored question. Existing work mainly follows the Helpful, Honest, Harmless principle and specifies values as risk criteria formulated in the AI community, e.g., fairness and privacy protection, suffering from poor clarity, adaptability and transparency. Inspired by basic values in humanity and social science across cultures, this work proposes a novel basic value alignment paradigm and introduces a value space spanned by basic value dimensions. All LLMs' behaviors can be mapped into the space by identifying the underlying values, possessing the potential to address the three challenges. To foster future research, we apply the representative Schwartz's Theory of Basic Values as an initialized example and construct FULCRA, a dataset consisting of 5k (LLM output, value vector) pairs. Our extensive analysis of FULCRA reveals the underlying relation between basic values and LLMs' behaviors, demonstrating that our approach not only covers existing mainstream risks but also anticipates possibly unidentified ones. Additionally, we present an initial implementation of the basic value evaluation and alignment, paving the way for future research in this line.

Generic text summarization approaches often fail to address the specific intent and needs of individual users. Recently, scholarly attention has turned to the development of summarization methods that are more closely tailored and controlled to align with specific objectives and user needs. While a growing corpus of research is devoted towards a more controllable summarization, there is no comprehensive survey available that thoroughly explores the diverse controllable aspects or attributes employed in this context, delves into the associated challenges, and investigates the existing solutions. In this survey, we formalize the Controllable Text Summarization (CTS) task, categorize controllable aspects according to their shared characteristics and objectives, and present a thorough examination of existing methods and datasets within each category. Moreover, based on our findings, we uncover limitations and research gaps, while also delving into potential solutions and future directions for CTS.

Social media discourse from US politicians frequently consists of 'seemingly similar language used by opposing sides of the political spectrum'. But often, it translates to starkly contrasting real-world actions. For instance, "We need to keep our students safe from mass shootings" may signal either "arming teachers to stop the shooter" or "banning guns to reduce mass shootings" depending on who says it and their political stance on the issue. In this paper, we define and characterize the context that is required to fully understand such ambiguous statements in a computational setting and ground them in real-world entities, actions, and attitudes. To that end, we propose two challenging datasets that require an understanding of the real-world context of the text to be solved effectively. We benchmark these datasets against baselines built upon large pre-trained models such as BERT, RoBERTa, GPT-3, etc. Additionally, we develop and benchmark more structured baselines building upon existing 'Discourse Contextualization Framework' and 'Political Actor Representation' models. We perform analysis of the datasets and baseline predictions to obtain further insights into the pragmatic language understanding challenges posed by the proposed social grounding tasks.

Online gender based violence has grown concomitantly with adoption of the internet and social media. Its effects are worse in the Global majority where many users use social media in languages other than English. The scale and volume of conversations on the internet has necessitated the need for automated detection of hate speech, and more specifically gendered abuse. There is, however, a lack of language specific and contextual data to build such automated tools. In this paper we present a dataset on gendered abuse in three languages- Hindi, Tamil and Indian English. The dataset comprises of tweets annotated along three questions pertaining to the experience of gender abuse, by experts who identify as women or a member of the LGBTQIA community in South Asia. Through this dataset we demonstrate a participatory approach to creating datasets that drive AI systems.

Computational argumentation has become an essential tool in various fields, including artificial intelligence, law, and public policy. It is an emerging research field in natural language processing (NLP) that attracts increasing attention. Research on computational argumentation mainly involves two types of tasks: argument mining and argument generation. As large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong abilities in understanding context and generating natural language, it is worthwhile to evaluate the performance of LLMs on various computational argumentation tasks. This work aims to embark on an assessment of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Flan models and LLaMA2 models, under zero-shot and few-shot settings within the realm of computational argumentation. We organize existing tasks into 6 main classes and standardise the format of 14 open-sourced datasets. In addition, we present a new benchmark dataset on counter speech generation, that aims to holistically evaluate the end-to-end performance of LLMs on argument mining and argument generation. Extensive experiments show that LLMs exhibit commendable performance across most of these datasets, demonstrating their capabilities in the field of argumentation. We also highlight the limitations in evaluating computational argumentation and provide suggestions for future research directions in this field.

The increased use of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of real-world applications calls for mechanisms to verify the factual accuracy of their outputs. In this work, we present a holistic end-to-end solution for annotating the factuality of LLM-generated responses, which encompasses a multi-stage annotation scheme designed to yield detailed labels concerning the verifiability and factual inconsistencies found in LLM outputs. We design and build an annotation tool to speed up the labelling procedure and ease the workload of raters. It allows flexible incorporation of automatic results in any stage, e.g. automatically-retrieved evidence. We further construct an open-domain document-level factuality benchmark in three-level granularity: claim, sentence and document. Preliminary experiments show that FacTool, FactScore and Perplexity.ai are struggling to identify false claims with the best F1=0.53. Annotation tool, benchmark and code are available at https://github.com/yuxiaw/Factcheck-GPT.

In-context learning (ICL) has become the default method for using large language models (LLMs), making the exploration of its limitations and understanding the underlying causes crucial. In this paper, we find that ICL falls short of handling specification-heavy tasks, which are tasks with complicated and extensive task specifications, requiring several hours for ordinary humans to master, such as traditional information extraction tasks. The performance of ICL on these tasks mostly cannot reach half of the state-of-the-art results. To explore the reasons behind this failure, we conduct comprehensive experiments on 18 specification-heavy tasks with various LLMs and identify three primary reasons: inability to specifically understand context, misalignment in task schema comprehension with humans, and inadequate long-text understanding ability. Furthermore, we demonstrate that through fine-tuning, LLMs can achieve decent performance on these tasks, indicating that the failure of ICL is not an inherent flaw of LLMs, but rather a drawback of existing alignment methods that renders LLMs incapable of handling complicated specification-heavy tasks via ICL. To substantiate this, we perform dedicated instruction tuning on LLMs for these tasks and observe a notable improvement. We hope the analyses in this paper could facilitate advancements in alignment methods enabling LLMs to meet more sophisticated human demands.

Realizing the recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) to the legal sector poses challenging problems such as extremely long sequence lengths, specialized vocabulary that is usually only understood by legal professionals, and high amounts of data imbalance. The recent surge of Large Language Models (LLMs) has begun to provide new opportunities to apply NLP in the legal domain due to their ability to handle lengthy, complex sequences. Moreover, the emergence of domain-specific LLMs has displayed extremely promising results on various tasks. In this study, we aim to quantify how general LLMs perform in comparison to legal-domain models (be it an LLM or otherwise). Specifically, we compare the zero-shot performance of three general-purpose LLMs (ChatGPT-20b, LLaMA-2-70b, and Falcon-180b) on the LEDGAR subset of the LexGLUE benchmark for contract provision classification. Although the LLMs were not explicitly trained on legal data, we observe that they are still able to classify the theme correctly in most cases. However, we find that their mic-F1/mac-F1 performance is up to 19.2/26.8\% lesser than smaller models fine-tuned on the legal domain, thus underscoring the need for more powerful legal-domain LLMs.