Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied to many research problems across various domains. One of the applications of LLMs is providing question-answering systems that cater to users from different fields. The effectiveness of LLM-based question-answering systems has already been established at an acceptable level for users posing questions in popular and public domains such as trivia and literature. However, it has not often been established in niche domains that traditionally require specialized expertise. To this end, we construct the NEPAQuAD1.0 benchmark to evaluate the performance of three frontier LLMs -- Claude Sonnet, Gemini, and GPT-4 -- when answering questions originating from Environmental Impact Statements prepared by U.S. federal government agencies in accordance with the National Environmental Environmental Act (NEPA). We specifically measure the ability of LLMs to understand the nuances of legal, technical, and compliance-related information present in NEPA documents in different contextual scenarios. For example, we test the LLMs' internal prior NEPA knowledge by providing questions without any context, as well as assess how LLMs synthesize the contextual information present in long NEPA documents to facilitate the question/answering task. We compare the performance of the long context LLMs and RAG powered models in handling different types of questions (e.g., problem-solving, divergent). Our results suggest that RAG powered models significantly outperform the long context models in the answer accuracy regardless of the choice of the frontier LLM. Our further analysis reveals that many models perform better answering closed questions than divergent and problem-solving questions.

The pervasive deployment of Large Language Models-LLMs in various sectors often neglects the nuanced requirements of individuals and small organizations, who benefit more from models precisely tailored to their specific business contexts rather than those with broadly superior general capabilities. This work introduces \textbf{AnyTaskTune}, a novel fine-tuning methodology coined as \textbf{Task-Fine-Tune}, specifically developed to elevate model performance on a diverse array of domain-specific tasks. This method involves a meticulous process to identify and define targeted sub-tasks within a domain, followed by the creation of specialized enhancement datasets for fine-tuning, thereby optimizing task-specific model performance. We conducted comprehensive fine-tuning experiments not only in the legal domain for tasks such as keyword extraction and sentence prediction but across over twenty different sub-tasks derived from the domains of finance, healthcare, law, psychology, consumer services, and human resources. To substantiate our approach and facilitate community engagement, we will open-source these bilingual task datasets. Our findings demonstrate that models fine-tuned using the \textbf{Task-Fine-Tune} methodology not only achieve superior performance on these specific tasks but also significantly outperform models with higher general capabilities in their respective domains. Our work is publicly available at \url{https://github.com/PandaVT/DataTager}.

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and amplify harmful stereotypes, particularly those that disproportionately affect marginalised communities. To understand the effect of these stereotypes more comprehensively, we introduce GlobalBias, a dataset of 876k sentences incorporating 40 distinct gender-by-ethnicity groups alongside descriptors typically used in bias literature, which enables us to study a broad set of stereotypes from around the world. We use GlobalBias to directly probe a suite of LMs via perplexity, which we use as a proxy to determine how certain stereotypes are represented in the model's internal representations. Following this, we generate character profiles based on given names and evaluate the prevalence of stereotypes in model outputs. We find that the demographic groups associated with various stereotypes remain consistent across model likelihoods and model outputs. Furthermore, larger models consistently display higher levels of stereotypical outputs, even when explicitly instructed not to.

Large Language Models (LLMs) enable a future in which certain types of legal documents may be generated automatically. This has a great potential to streamline legal processes, lower the cost of legal services, and dramatically increase access to justice. While many researchers focus their efforts on proposing and evaluating LLM-based applications supporting tasks in the legal domain, there is a notable lack of investigations into how legal professionals perceive content if they believe it has been generated by an LLM. Yet, this is a critical point as over-reliance or unfounded skepticism may influence whether such documents bring about appropriate legal consequences. This study is the necessary analysis in the context of the ongoing transition towards mature generative AI systems. Specifically, we examined whether the perception of legal documents' by lawyers (n=75) varies based on their assumed origin (human-crafted vs AI-generated). The participants evaluated the documents focusing on their correctness and language quality. Our analysis revealed a clear preference for documents perceived as crafted by a human over those believed to be generated by AI. At the same time, most of the participants are expecting the future in which documents will be generated automatically. These findings could be leveraged by legal practitioners, policy makers and legislators to implement and adopt legal document generation technology responsibly, and to fuel the necessary discussions into how legal processes should be updated to reflect the recent technological developments.

The Rashomon Effect, coined by Leo Breiman, describes the phenomenon that there exist many equally good predictive models for the same dataset. This phenomenon happens for many real datasets and when it does, it sparks both magic and consternation, but mostly magic. In light of the Rashomon Effect, this perspective piece proposes reshaping the way we think about machine learning, particularly for tabular data problems in the nondeterministic (noisy) setting. We address how the Rashomon Effect impacts (1) the existence of simple-yet-accurate models, (2) flexibility to address user preferences, such as fairness and monotonicity, without losing performance, (3) uncertainty in predictions, fairness, and explanations, (4) reliable variable importance, (5) algorithm choice, specifically, providing advanced knowledge of which algorithms might be suitable for a given problem, and (6) public policy. We also discuss a theory of when the Rashomon Effect occurs and why. Our goal is to illustrate how the Rashomon Effect can have a massive impact on the use of machine learning for complex problems in society.

Despite the impressive capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in various tasks, their vulnerability to unsafe prompts remains a critical issue. These prompts can lead LLMs to generate responses on illegal or sensitive topics, posing a significant threat to their safe and ethical use. Existing approaches attempt to address this issue using classification models, but they have several drawbacks. With the increasing complexity of unsafe prompts, similarity search-based techniques that identify specific features of unsafe prompts provide a more robust and effective solution to this evolving problem. This paper investigates the potential of sentence encoders to distinguish safe from unsafe prompts, and the ability to classify various unsafe prompts according to a safety taxonomy. We introduce new pairwise datasets and the Categorical Purity (CP) metric to measure this capability. Our findings reveal both the effectiveness and limitations of existing sentence encoders, proposing directions to improve sentence encoders to operate as more robust safety detectors. Our code is available at https://github.com/JwdanielJung/Safe-Embed.

The recent development of Sora leads to a new era in text-to-video (T2V) generation. Along with this comes the rising concern about its security risks. The generated videos may contain illegal or unethical content, and there is a lack of comprehensive quantitative understanding of their safety, posing a challenge to their reliability and practical deployment. Previous evaluations primarily focus on the quality of video generation. While some evaluations of text-to-image models have considered safety, they cover fewer aspects and do not address the unique temporal risk inherent in video generation. To bridge this research gap, we introduce T2VSafetyBench, a new benchmark designed for conducting safety-critical assessments of text-to-video models. We define 12 critical aspects of video generation safety and construct a malicious prompt dataset using LLMs and jailbreaking prompt attacks. Based on our evaluation results, we draw several important findings, including: 1) no single model excels in all aspects, with different models showing various strengths; 2) the correlation between GPT-4 assessments and manual reviews is generally high; 3) there is a trade-off between the usability and safety of text-to-video generative models. This indicates that as the field of video generation rapidly advances, safety risks are set to surge, highlighting the urgency of prioritizing video safety. We hope that T2VSafetyBench can provide insights for better understanding the safety of video generation in the era of generative AI.

At face value, this essay is about understanding a fairly esoteric governance tool called compute thresholds. However, in order to grapple with whether these thresholds will achieve anything, we must first understand how they came to be. This requires engaging with a decades-old debate at the heart of computer science progress, namely, is bigger always better? Hence, this essay may be of interest not only to policymakers and the wider public but also to computer scientists interested in understanding the role of compute in unlocking breakthroughs. Does a certain inflection point of compute result in changes to the risk profile of a model? This discussion is increasingly urgent given the wide adoption of governance approaches that suggest greater compute equates with higher propensity for harm. Several leading frontier AI companies have released responsible scaling policies. Both the White House Executive Orders on AI Safety (EO) and the EU AI Act encode the use of FLOP or floating-point operations as a way to identify more powerful systems. What is striking about the choice of compute thresholds to-date is that no models currently deployed in the wild fulfill the current criteria set by the EO. This implies that the emphasis is often not on auditing the risks and harms incurred by currently deployed models - but rather is based upon the belief that future levels of compute will introduce unforeseen new risks. A key conclusion of this essay is that compute thresholds as currently implemented are shortsighted and likely to fail to mitigate risk. Governance that is overly reliant on compute fails to understand that the relationship between compute and risk is highly uncertain and rapidly changing. It also overestimates our ability to predict what abilities emerge at different scales. This essay ends with recommendations for a better way forward.

Domain-specific Entity Recognition holds significant importance in legal contexts, serving as a fundamental task that supports various applications such as question-answering systems, text summarization, machine translation, sentiment analysis, and information retrieval specifically within case law documents. Recent advancements have highlighted the efficacy of Large Language Models in natural language processing tasks, demonstrating their capability to accurately detect and classify domain-specific facts (entities) from specialized texts like clinical and financial documents. This research investigates the application of Large Language Models in identifying domain-specific entities (e.g., courts, petitioner, judge, lawyer, respondents, FIR nos.) within case law documents, with a specific focus on their aptitude for handling domain-specific language complexity and contextual variations. The study evaluates the performance of state-of-the-art Large Language Model architectures, including Large Language Model Meta AI 3, Mistral, and Gemma, in the context of extracting judicial facts tailored to Indian judicial texts. Mistral and Gemma emerged as the top-performing models, showcasing balanced precision and recall crucial for accurate entity identification. These findings confirm the value of Large Language Models in judicial documents and demonstrate how they can facilitate and quicken scientific research by producing precise, organised data outputs that are appropriate for in-depth examination.

Large language models (LLMs) have convincing performance in a variety of downstream tasks. However, these systems are prone to generating undesirable outputs such as harmful and biased text. In order to remedy such generations, the development of guardrail (or detector) models has gained traction. Motivated by findings from developing a detector for social bias, we adopt the notion of a use-mention distinction - which we identified as the primary source of under-performance in the preliminary versions of our social bias detector. Armed with this information, we describe a fully extensible and reproducible synthetic data generation pipeline which leverages taxonomy-driven instructions to create targeted and labeled data. Using this pipeline, we generate over 300K unique contrastive samples and provide extensive experiments to systematically evaluate performance on a suite of open source datasets. We show that our method achieves competitive performance with a fraction of the cost in compute and offers insight into iteratively developing efficient and capable guardrail models. Warning: This paper contains examples of text which are toxic, biased, and potentially harmful.