As financial institutions increasingly rely on machine learning models to automate lending decisions, concerns about algorithmic fairness have risen. This paper explores the tradeoff between enforcing fairness constraints (such as demographic parity or equal opportunity) and maximizing lender profitability. Through simulations on synthetic data that reflects real-world lending patterns, we quantify how different fairness interventions impact profit margins and default rates. Our results demonstrate that equal opportunity constraints typically impose lower profit costs than demographic parity, but surprisingly, removing protected attributes from the model (fairness through unawareness) outperforms explicit fairness interventions in both fairness and profitability metrics. We further identify the specific economic conditions under which fair lending becomes profitable and analyze the feature-specific drivers of unfairness. These findings offer practical guidance for designing lending algorithms that balance ethical considerations with business objectives.

Query expansion methods powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated effectiveness in zero-shot retrieval tasks. These methods assume that LLMs can generate hypothetical documents that, when incorporated into a query vector, enhance the retrieval of real evidence. However, we challenge this assumption by investigating whether knowledge leakage in benchmarks contributes to the observed performance gains. Using fact verification as a testbed, we analyze whether the generated documents contain information entailed by ground-truth evidence and assess their impact on performance. Our findings indicate that, on average, performance improvements consistently occurred for claims whose generated documents included sentences entailed by gold evidence. This suggests that knowledge leakage may be present in fact-verification benchmarks, potentially inflating the perceived performance of LLM-based query expansion methods.

Courtrooms are places where lives are determined and fates are sealed, yet they are not impervious to manipulation. Strategic use of manipulation in legal jargon can sway the opinions of judges and affect the decisions. Despite the growing advancements in NLP, its application in detecting and analyzing manipulation within the legal domain remains largely unexplored. Our work addresses this gap by introducing LegalCon, a dataset of 1,063 annotated courtroom conversations labeled for manipulation detection, identification of primary manipulators, and classification of manipulative techniques, with a focus on long conversations. Furthermore, we propose CLAIM, a two-stage, Intent-driven Multi-agent framework designed to enhance manipulation analysis by enabling context-aware and informed decision-making. Our results highlight the potential of incorporating agentic frameworks to improve fairness and transparency in judicial processes. We hope that this contributes to the broader application of NLP in legal discourse analysis and the development of robust tools to support fairness in legal decision-making. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Disha1001/CLAIM.

Automated counter-narratives (CN) offer a promising strategy for mitigating online hate speech, yet concerns about their affective tone, accessibility, and ethical risks remain. We propose a framework for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM)-generated CNs across four dimensions: persona framing, verbosity and readability, affective tone, and ethical robustness. Using GPT-4o-Mini, Cohere's CommandR-7B, and Meta's LLaMA 3.1-70B, we assess three prompting strategies on the MT-Conan and HatEval datasets. Our findings reveal that LLM-generated CNs are often verbose and adapted for people with college-level literacy, limiting their accessibility. While emotionally guided prompts yield more empathetic and readable responses, there remain concerns surrounding safety and effectiveness.

Legal decisions are increasingly evaluated for fairness, consistency, and bias using machine learning (ML) techniques. In high-stakes domains like refugee adjudication, such methods are often applied to detect disparities in outcomes. Yet it remains unclear whether statistical methods can meaningfully assess fairness in legal contexts shaped by discretion, normative complexity, and limited ground truth. In this paper, we empirically evaluate three common ML approaches (feature-based analysis, semantic clustering, and predictive modeling) on a large, real-world dataset of 59,000+ Canadian refugee decisions (AsyLex). Our experiments show that these methods produce divergent and sometimes contradictory signals, that predictive modeling often depends on contextual and procedural features rather than legal features, and that semantic clustering fails to capture substantive legal reasoning. We show limitations of statistical fairness evaluation, challenge the assumption that statistical regularity equates to fairness, and argue that current computational approaches fall short of evaluating fairness in legally discretionary domains. We argue that evaluating fairness in law requires methods grounded not only in data, but in legal reasoning and institutional context.

Recent advances in knowledge representation learning (KRL) highlight the urgent necessity to unify symbolic knowledge graphs (KGs) with language models (LMs) for richer semantic understanding. However, existing approaches typically prioritize either graph structure or textual semantics, leaving a gap: a unified framework that simultaneously captures global KG connectivity, nuanced linguistic context, and discriminative reasoning semantics. To bridge this gap, we introduce KG-BiLM, a bidirectional LM framework that fuses structural cues from KGs with the semantic expressiveness of generative transformers. KG-BiLM incorporates three key components: (i) Bidirectional Knowledge Attention, which removes the causal mask to enable full interaction among all tokens and entities; (ii) Knowledge-Masked Prediction, which encourages the model to leverage both local semantic contexts and global graph connectivity; and (iii) Contrastive Graph Semantic Aggregation, which preserves KG structure via contrastive alignment of sampled sub-graph representations. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate that KG-BiLM outperforms strong baselines in link prediction, especially on large-scale graphs with complex multi-hop relations - validating its effectiveness in unifying structural information and textual semantics.

Strategic litigation involves bringing a legal case to court with the goal of having a broader impact beyond resolving the case itself: for example, creating precedent which will influence future rulings. In this paper, we explore strategic litigation from the perspective of machine learning theory. We consider an abstract model of a common-law legal system where a lower court decides new cases by applying a decision rule learned from a higher court's past rulings. In this model, we explore the power of a strategic litigator, who strategically brings cases to the higher court to influence the learned decision rule, thereby affecting future cases. We explore questions including: What impact can a strategic litigator have? Which cases should a strategic litigator bring to court? Does it ever make sense for a strategic litigator to bring a case when they are sure the court will rule against them?

Violent threats remain a significant problem across social media platforms. Useful, high-quality data facilitates research into the understanding and detection of malicious content, including violence. In this paper, we introduce a cross-platform dataset of 30,000 posts hand-coded for violent threats and sub-types of violence, including political and sexual violence. To evaluate the signal present in this dataset, we perform a machine learning analysis with an existing dataset of violent comments from YouTube. We find that, despite originating from different platforms and using different coding criteria, we achieve high classification accuracy both by training on one dataset and testing on the other, and in a merged dataset condition. These results have implications for content-classification strategies and for understanding violent content across social media.

Children are one of the most under-represented groups in speech technologies, as well as one of the most vulnerable in terms of privacy. Despite this, anonymization techniques targeting this population have received little attention. In this study, we seek to bridge this gap, and establish a baseline for the use of voice anonymization techniques designed for adult speech when applied to children's voices. Such an evaluation is essential, as children's speech presents a distinct set of challenges when compared to that of adults. This study comprises three children's datasets, six anonymization methods, and objective and subjective utility metrics for evaluation. Our results show that existing systems for adults are still able to protect children's voice privacy, but suffer from much higher utility degradation. In addition, our subjective study displays the challenges of automatic evaluation methods for speech quality in children's speech, highlighting the need for further research.

Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to force AI companies to be transparent about what material they use to train their models. He added: "We will not let the government forget their promise to support our creative industries. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning." Resistance to the changes in the Lords has been led by Beeban Kidron, a cross-bench peer and film director, whose amendments have been repeatedly backed by the upper chamber.