Legal Entity Recognition (LER) involves identifying key entities such as parties, dates, monetary amounts, and legal provisions from legal documents. Automating this process is crucial for improving efficiency in legal workflows, including contract review, compliance monitoring, and litigation support. Traditional Named Entity Recognition (NER) methods, such as rule-based systems and classical machine learning models like Conditional Random Fields (CRFs), require extensive feature engineering and struggle to adapt to new legal terminologies. Transformer-based models, particularly BERT [1], have shown great promise in various NLP tasks, including LER. **Legal-BERT**, a finetuned variant of BERT for legal texts, has demonstrated superior performance

In high-stakes domains like legal question-answering, the accuracy and trustworthiness of generative AI systems are of paramount importance. This work presents a comprehensive benchmark of various methods to assess the groundedness of AI-generated responses, aiming to significantly enhance their reliability. Our experiments include similarity-based metrics and natural language inference models to evaluate whether responses are well-founded in the given contexts. We also explore different prompting strategies for large language models to improve the detection of ungrounded responses. We validated the effectiveness of these methods using a newly created grounding classification corpus, designed specifically for legal queries and corresponding responses from retrieval-augmented prompting, focusing on their alignment with source material. Our results indicate potential in groundedness classification of generated responses, with the best method achieving a macro-F1 score of 0.8. Additionally, we evaluated the methods in terms of their latency to determine their suitability for real-world applications, as this step typically follows the generation process. This capability is essential for processes that may trigger additional manual verification or automated response regeneration. In summary, this study demonstrates the potential of various detection methods to improve the trustworthiness of generative AI in legal settings.

While much research has explored enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in the last few years, there is a gap in understanding the alignment of these models with social values and norms. We introduce the task of judging social acceptance. Social acceptance requires models to judge and rationalize the acceptability of people's actions in social situations. For example, is it socially acceptable for a neighbor to ask others in the community to keep their pets indoors at night? We find that LLMs' understanding of social acceptance is often misaligned with human consensus. To alleviate this, we introduce SocialGaze, a multi-step prompting framework, in which a language model verbalizes a social situation from multiple perspectives before forming a judgment. Our experiments demonstrate that the SocialGaze approach improves the alignment with human judgments by up to 11 F1 points with the GPT-3.5 model. We also identify biases and correlations in LLMs in assigning blame that is related to features such as the gender (males are significantly more likely to be judged unfairly) and age (LLMs are more aligned with humans for older narrators).

Understanding land cover holds considerable potential for a myriad of practical applications, particularly as data accessibility transitions from being exclusive to governmental and commercial entities to now including the broader research community. Nevertheless, although the data is accessible to any community member interested in exploration, there exists a formidable learning curve and no standardized process for accessing, pre-processing, and leveraging the data for subsequent tasks. In this study, we democratize this data by presenting a flexible and efficient end to end pipeline for working with the Dynamic World dataset, a cutting-edge near-real-time land use/land cover (LULC) dataset. This includes a pre-processing and representation framework which tackles noise removal, efficient extraction of large amounts of data, and re-representation of LULC data in a format well suited for several downstream tasks. To demonstrate the power of our pipeline, we use it to extract data for an urbanization prediction problem and build a suite of machine learning models with excellent performance. This task is easily generalizable to the prediction of any type of land cover and our pipeline is also compatible with a series of other downstream tasks.

Machine unlearning (MU) is to make a well-trained model behave as if it had never been trained on specific data. In today's over-parameterized models, dominated by neural networks, a common approach is to manually relabel data and fine-tune the well-trained model. It can approximate the MU model in the output space, but the question remains whether it can achieve exact MU, i.e., in the parameter space. We answer this question by employing random feature techniques to construct an analytical framework. Under the premise of model optimization via stochastic gradient descent, we theoretically demonstrated that over-parameterized linear models can achieve exact MU through relabeling specific data. We also extend this work to real-world nonlinear networks and propose an alternating optimization algorithm that unifies the tasks of unlearning and relabeling. The algorithm's effectiveness, confirmed through numerical experiments, highlights its superior performance in unlearning across various scenarios compared to current state-of-the-art methods, particularly excelling over similar relabeling-based MU approaches.

The current paradigm for safety alignment of large language models (LLMs) follows a one-size-fits-all approach: the model refuses to interact with any content deemed unsafe by the model provider. This approach lacks flexibility in the face of varying social norms across cultures and regions. In addition, users may have diverse safety needs, making a model with static safety standards too restrictive to be useful, as well as too costly to be re-aligned. We propose Controllable Safety Alignment (CoSA), a framework designed to adapt models to diverse safety requirements without re-training. Instead of aligning a fixed model, we align models to follow safety configs -- free-form natural language descriptions of the desired safety behaviors -- that are provided as part of the system prompt. To adjust model safety behavior, authorized users only need to modify such safety configs at inference time. To enable that, we propose CoSAlign, a data-centric method for aligning LLMs to easily adapt to diverse safety configs. Furthermore, we devise a novel controllability evaluation protocol that considers both helpfulness and configured safety, summarizing them into CoSA-Score, and construct CoSApien, a human-authored benchmark that consists of real-world LLM use cases with diverse safety requirements and corresponding evaluation prompts. We show that CoSAlign leads to substantial gains of controllability over strong baselines including in-context alignment. Our framework encourages better representation and adaptation to pluralistic human values in LLMs, and thereby increasing their practicality.

The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led to a greater challenge of having a rigorous and systematic evaluation of complex tasks performed, especially in enterprise applications. Therefore, LLMs need to be able to benchmark enterprise datasets for various tasks. This work presents a systematic exploration of benchmarking strategies tailored to LLM evaluation, focusing on the utilization of domain-specific datasets and consisting of a variety of NLP tasks. The proposed evaluation framework encompasses 25 publicly available datasets from diverse enterprise domains like financial services, legal, cyber security, and climate and sustainability. The diverse performance of 13 models across different enterprise tasks highlights the importance of selecting the right model based on the specific requirements of each task. Code and prompts are available on GitHub.

In this article we study virtual nonholonomic constraints, which are relations between the generalized coordinates and momenta of a mechanical system that can be enforced via feedback control. We design a constraint which emulates gymnastics giant motion in an acrobot, and prove that this constraint can inject or dissipate energy based on the sign of a design parameter. The proposed constraint is tested both in simulation and experimentally on a real-world acrobot, demonstrating highly effective energy regulation properties and robustness to a variety of disturbances.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged as a critical area of research to unravel the opaque inner logic of (deep) machine learning models. Among the various XAI techniques proposed in the literature, counterfactual explanations stand out as one of the most promising approaches. However, these ``what-if'' explanations are frequently complex and technical, making them difficult for non-experts to understand and, more broadly, challenging for humans to interpret. To bridge this gap, in this work, we exploit the power of open-source Large Language Models to generate natural language explanations when prompted with valid counterfactual instances produced by state-of-the-art explainers for graph-based models. Experiments across several graph datasets and counterfactual explainers show that our approach effectively produces accurate natural language representations of counterfactual instances, as demonstrated by key performance metrics.

We introduce AutoPersuade, a three-part framework for constructing persuasive messages. First, we curate a large dataset of arguments with human evaluations. Next, we develop a novel topic model to identify argument features that influence persuasiveness. Finally, we use this model to predict the effectiveness of new arguments and assess the causal impact of different components to provide explanations. We validate AutoPersuade through an experimental study on arguments for veganism, demonstrating its effectiveness with human studies and out-of-sample predictions.