Existing legal frameworks on AI rely on training compute thresholds as a proxy to identify potentially-dangerous AI models and trigger increased regulatory attention. In the United States, Section 4.2(a) of Executive Order 14110 instructs the Secretary of Commerce to require extensive reporting from developers of AI models above a certain training compute threshold. In the European Union, Article 51 of the AI Act establishes a presumption that AI models above a certain compute threshold have high impact capabilities and hence pose systemic risk, thus subjecting their developers to several obligations including capability evaluations, reporting, and incident monitoring. In this paper, we examine some enhancement techniques that are capable of decreasing training compute usage while preserving, or even increasing, model capabilities. Since training compute thresholds rely on training compute as a metric and trigger for increased regulatory attention, these capability-enhancing and compute-saving techniques could constitute a legal loophole to existing training compute thresholds. In particular, we concentrate on four illustrative techniques (fine-tuning, model reuse, model expansion, and above compute-optimal inference compute) with the goal of furthering the conversation about their implications on training compute thresholds as a legal mechanism and advancing policy recommendations that could address the relevant legal loopholes.

Recent work has investigated the concept of adversarial attacks on explainable AI (XAI) in the NLP domain with a focus on examining the vulnerability of local surrogate methods such as Lime to adversarial perturbations or small changes on the input of a machine learning (ML) model. In such attacks, the generated explanation is manipulated while the meaning and structure of the original input remain similar under the ML model. Such attacks are especially alarming when XAI is used as a basis for decision making (e.g., prescribing drugs based on AI medical predictors) or for legal action (e.g., legal dispute involving AI software). Although weaknesses across many XAI methods have been shown to exist, the reasons behind why remain little explored. Central to this XAI manipulation is the similarity measure used to calculate how one explanation differs from another. A poor choice of similarity measure can lead to erroneous conclusions about the stability or adversarial robustness of an XAI method. Therefore, this work investigates a variety of similarity measures designed for text-based ranked lists referenced in related work to determine their comparative suitability for use. We find that many measures are overly sensitive, resulting in erroneous estimates of stability. We then propose a weighting scheme for text-based data that incorporates the synonymity between the features within an explanation, providing more accurate estimates of the actual weakness of XAI methods to adversarial examples.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, particularly with the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) built on the transformer architecture, has redefined the capabilities of natural language processing. These models now exhibit remarkable performance across various language-related tasks, such as text generation, question answering, translation, and summarization, often rivaling human-like comprehension. More intriguingly, LLMs have demonstrated emergent abilities extending beyond their core functions, showing proficiency in tasks like commonsense reasoning, code generation, and arithmetic. This survey paper explores the foundational components, scaling mechanisms, and architectural strategies that drive these capabilities. Emphasizing models like GPT and LLaMA, we analyze the impact of exponential data and computational growth on LLM performance, while also addressing the trade-offs associated with scaling. We also examine LLM applications across sectors, such as healthcare, finance, education, and law, highlighting their adaptability and potential to solve domain-specific challenges. Central to this work are the questions of how LLMs generalize across diverse tasks, exhibit planning, and reasoning abilities, and whether these emergent abilities can be systematically elicited or enhanced. In particular, we provide some insights into the CoT (Chain of Thought) and PoT (Plan of Thought) abilities within LLMs, focusing on how pre-training data influences their emergence. Additionally, we investigate LLM-modulo frameworks that integrate external systems, allowing LLMs to handle complex, dynamic tasks. By analyzing these factors, this paper aims to foster the ongoing discussion on the capabilities and limits of LLMs, promoting their responsible development and application in novel and increasingly complex environments.

Scaling laws for language models so far focused on finding the compute-optimal model size and token count for training from scratch. However, achieving this optimal balance requires significant compute resources due to the extensive data demands when training models from randomly-initialized weights. Continual pre-training offers a cost-effective alternative, leveraging the compute investment from pre-trained models to incorporate new knowledge without requiring extensive new data. Recent findings suggest that data quality influences constants in scaling laws, thereby altering the optimal parameter-token allocation ratio. Building on this insight, we investigate the interplay between domain specialization and model size during continual pre-training under compute-constrained scenarios. Our goal is to identify a compute-efficient training regime for this scenario and, potentially, detect patterns in this interplay that can be generalized across different model sizes and domains. To compare general and specialized training, we filtered a web-based dataset to extract legal domain data. We pre-trained models with 1.5B, 3B, 7B and 14B parameters on both the unfiltered and filtered datasets, then evaluated their performance on legal exams. Results show that as model size increases, the compute-effectiveness gap between specialized and general models widens.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly prevalent in tasks related to cultural heritage, such as generating descriptions of historical monuments, translating ancient texts, preserving oral traditions, and creating educational content, their ability to produce accurate and culturally aligned texts is being increasingly relied upon by users and researchers. However, cultural value misalignments may exist in generated texts, such as the misrepresentation of historical facts, the erosion of cultural identity, and the oversimplification of complex cultural narratives, which may lead to severe consequences. Therefore, investigating value misalignment in the context of LLM for cultural heritage is crucial for mitigating these risks, yet there has been a significant lack of systematic and comprehensive study and investigation in this area. To fill this gap, we systematically assess the reliability of LLMs in generating culturally aligned texts for cultural heritage-related tasks. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation by compiling an extensive set of 1066 query tasks covering 5 widely recognized categories with 17 aspects within the knowledge framework of cultural heritage across 5 open-source LLMs, and examine both the type and rate of cultural value misalignments in the generated texts. Using both automated and manual approaches, we effectively detect and analyze the cultural value misalignments in LLM-generated texts. Our findings are concerning: over 65% of the generated texts exhibit notable cultural misalignments, with certain tasks demonstrating almost complete misalignment with key cultural values. Beyond these findings, this paper introduces a benchmark dataset and a comprehensive evaluation workflow that can serve as a valuable resource for future research aimed at enhancing the cultural sensitivity and reliability of LLMs.

The increasing use of machine learning in learning analytics (LA) has raised significant concerns around algorithmic fairness and privacy. Synthetic data has emerged as a dual-purpose tool, enhancing privacy and improving fairness in LA models. However, prior research suggests an inverse relationship between fairness and privacy, making it challenging to optimize both. This study investigates which synthetic data generators can best balance privacy and fairness, and whether pre-processing fairness algorithms, typically applied to real datasets, are effective on synthetic data. Our results highlight that the DEbiasing CAusal Fairness (DECAF) algorithm achieves the best balance between privacy and fairness. However, DECAF suffers in utility, as reflected in its predictive accuracy. Notably, we found that applying pre-processing fairness algorithms to synthetic data improves fairness even more than when applied to real data. These findings suggest that combining synthetic data generation with fairness pre-processing offers a promising approach to creating fairer LA models.

Legal articles often include vague concepts to adapt to the ever-changing society. Providing detailed interpretations of these concepts is a critical task for legal practitioners, which requires meticulous and professional annotations by legal experts, admittedly time-consuming and expensive to collect at scale. In this paper, we introduce a novel retrieval-augmented generation framework, ATRI, for AuTomatically Retrieving relevant information from past judicial precedents and Interpreting vague legal concepts. We further propose a new benchmark, Legal Concept Entailment, to automate the evaluation of generated concept interpretations without expert involvement. Automatic evaluations indicate that our generated interpretations can effectively assist large language models (LLMs) in understanding vague legal concepts. Multi-faceted evaluations by legal experts indicate that the quality of our concept interpretations is comparable to those written by human experts. Our work has strong implications for leveraging LLMs to support legal practitioners in interpreting vague legal concepts and beyond.

The paper presents a preliminary analysis of an experiment conducted by Frank Bold, a Czech expert group, to explore user interactions with GPT-4 for addressing legal queries. Between May 3, 2023, and July 25, 2023, 1,252 users submitted 3,847 queries. Unlike studies that primarily focus on the accuracy, factuality, or hallucination tendencies of large language models (LLMs), our analysis focuses on the user query dimension of the interaction. Using GPT-4o for zero-shot classification, we categorized queries on (1) whether users provided factual information about their issue (29.95%) or not (70.05%), (2) whether they sought legal information (64.93%) or advice on the course of action (35.07\%), and (3) whether they imposed requirements to shape or control the model's answer (28.57%) or not (71.43%). We provide both quantitative and qualitative insight into user needs and contribute to a better understanding of user engagement with LLMs.

This paper introduces LongBench v2, a benchmark designed to assess the ability of LLMs to handle long-context problems requiring deep understanding and reasoning across real-world multitasks. LongBench v2 consists of 503 challenging multiple-choice questions, with contexts ranging from 8k to 2M words, across six major task categories: single-document QA, multi-document QA, long in-context learning, long-dialogue history understanding, code repository understanding, and long structured data understanding. To ensure the breadth and the practicality, we collect data from nearly 100 highly educated individuals with diverse professional backgrounds. We employ both automated and manual review processes to maintain high quality and difficulty, resulting in human experts achieving only 53.7% accuracy under a 15-minute time constraint. Our evaluation reveals that the best-performing model, when directly answers the questions, achieves only 50.1% accuracy. In contrast, the o1-preview model, which includes longer reasoning, achieves 57.7%, surpassing the human baseline by 4%. These results highlight the importance of enhanced reasoning ability and scaling inference-time compute to tackle the long-context challenges in LongBench v2. The project is available at https://longbench2.github.io.

How can we use the novel capacities of large language models (LLMs) in empirical research? And how can we do so while accounting for their limitations, which are themselves only poorly understood? We develop an econometric framework to answer this question that distinguishes between two types of empirical tasks. Using LLMs for prediction problems (including hypothesis generation) is valid under one condition: no ``leakage'' between the LLM's training dataset and the researcher's sample. No leakage can be ensured by using open-source LLMs with documented training data and published weights. Using LLM outputs for estimation problems to automate the measurement of some economic concept (expressed either by some text or from human subjects) requires the researcher to collect at least some validation data: without such data, the errors of the LLM's automation cannot be assessed and accounted for. As long as these steps are taken, LLM outputs can be used in empirical research with the familiar econometric guarantees we desire. Using two illustrative applications to finance and political economy, we find that these requirements are stringent; when they are violated, the limitations of LLMs now result in unreliable empirical estimates. Our results suggest the excitement around the empirical uses of LLMs is warranted -- they allow researchers to effectively use even small amounts of language data for both prediction and estimation -- but only with these safeguards in place.