Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating opinions and propagating bias unknowingly, originating from unrepresentative and non-diverse data collection. Prior research has analysed these opinions with respect to the West, particularly the United States. However, insights thus produced may not be generalized in non-Western populations. With the widespread usage of LLM systems by users across several different walks of life, the cultural sensitivity of each generated output is of crucial interest. Our work proposes a novel method that quantitatively analyzes the opinions generated by LLMs, improving on previous work with regards to extracting the social demographics of the models. Our method measures the distance from an LLM's response to survey respondents, through Hamming Distance, to infer the demographic characteristics reflected in the model's outputs. We evaluate modern, open LLMs such as Llama and Mistral on surveys conducted in various global south countries, with a focus on India and other Asian nations, specifically assessing the model's performance on surveys related to religious tolerance and identity. Our analysis reveals that most open LLMs match a single homogeneous profile, varying across different countries/territories, which in turn raises questions about the risks of LLMs promoting a hegemonic worldview, and undermining perspectives of different minorities. Our framework may also be useful for future research investigating the complex intersection between training data, model architecture, and the resulting biases reflected in LLM outputs, particularly concerning sensitive topics like religious tolerance and identity.

Identification of rhetorical roles like facts, arguments, and final judgments is central to understanding a legal case document and can lend power to other downstream tasks like legal case summarization and judgment prediction. However, there are several challenges to this task. Legal documents are often unstructured and contain a specialized vocabulary, making it hard for conventional transformer models to understand them. Additionally, these documents run into several pages, which makes it difficult for neural models to capture the entire context at once. Lastly, there is a dearth of annotated legal documents to train deep learning models. Previous state-of-the-art approaches for this task have focused on using neural models like BiLSTM-CRF or have explored different embedding techniques to achieve decent results. While such techniques have shown that better embedding can result in improved model performance, not many models have focused on utilizing attention for learning better embeddings in sentences of a document. Additionally, it has been recently shown that advanced techniques like multi-task learning can help the models learn better representations, thereby improving performance. In this paper, we combine these two aspects by proposing a novel family of multi-task learning-based models for rhetorical role labeling, named MARRO, that uses transformer-inspired multi-headed attention. Using label shift as an auxiliary task, we show that models from the MARRO family achieve state-of-the-art results on two labeled datasets for rhetorical role labeling, from the Indian and UK Supreme Courts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable advancements but also raise concerns about cultural bias, often reflecting dominant narratives at the expense of under-represented subcultures. In this study, we evaluate the capacity of LLMs to recognize and accurately respond to the Little Traditions within Indian society, encompassing localized cultural practices and subcultures such as caste, kinship, marriage, and religion. Through a series of case studies, we assess whether LLMs can balance the interplay between dominant Great Traditions and localized Little Traditions. We explore various prompting strategies and further investigate whether using prompts in regional languages enhances the models cultural sensitivity and response quality. Our findings reveal that while LLMs demonstrate an ability to articulate cultural nuances, they often struggle to apply this understanding in practical, context-specific scenarios. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze LLMs engagement with Indian subcultures, offering critical insights into the challenges of embedding cultural diversity in AI systems.

Despite the availability of vast amounts of data, legal data is often unstructured, making it difficult even for law practitioners to ingest and comprehend the same. It is important to organise the legal information in a way that is useful for practitioners and downstream automation tasks. The word ontology was used by Greek philosophers to discuss concepts of existence, being, becoming and reality. Today, scientists use this term to describe the relation between concepts, data, and entities. A great example for a working ontology was developed by Dhani and Bhatt. This ontology deals with Indian court cases on intellectual property rights (IPR) The future of legal ontologies is likely to be handled by computer experts and legal experts alike.

Employing Large Language Models (LLM) in various downstream applications such as classification is crucial, especially for smaller companies lacking the expertise and resources required for fine-tuning a model. Fairness in LLMs helps ensure inclusivity, equal representation based on factors such as race, gender and promotes responsible AI deployment. As the use of LLMs has become increasingly prevalent, it is essential to assess whether LLMs can generate fair outcomes when subjected to considerations of fairness. In this study, we introduce a framework outlining fairness regulations aligned with various fairness definitions, with each definition being modulated by varying degrees of abstraction. We explore the configuration for in-context learning and the procedure for selecting in-context demonstrations using RAG, while incorporating fairness rules into the process. Experiments conducted with different LLMs indicate that GPT-4 delivers superior results in terms of both accuracy and fairness compared to other models. This work is one of the early attempts to achieve fairness in prediction tasks by utilizing LLMs through in-context learning.

The k-SERVER problem is one of the most prominent problems in online algorithms with several variants and extensions. However, simplifying assumptions like instantaneous server movements and zero service time has hitherto limited its applicability to real-world problems. In this paper, we introduce a realistic generalization of k-SERVER without such assumptions - the k-FOOD problem, where requests with source-destination locations and an associated pickup time window arrive in an online fashion, and each has to be served by exactly one of the available k servers. The k-FOOD problem offers the versatility to model a variety of real-world use cases such as food delivery, ride sharing, and quick commerce. Moreover, motivated by the need for fairness in online platforms, we introduce the FAIR k-FOOD problem with the max-min objective. We establish that both k-FOOD and FAIR k-FOOD problems are strongly NP-hard and develop an optimal offline algorithm that arises naturally from a time-expanded flow network. Subsequently, we propose an online algorithm DOC4FOOD involving virtual movements of servers to the nearest request location. Experiments on a real-world food-delivery dataset, alongside synthetic datasets, establish the efficacy of the proposed algorithm against state-of-the-art fair food delivery algorithms.

Many online platforms today (such as Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, LinkedIn, and AirBnB) can be thought of as two-sided markets with producers and customers of goods and services. Traditionally, recommendation services in these platforms have focused on maximizing customer satisfaction by tailoring the results according to the personalized preferences of individual customers. However, our investigation reinforces the fact that such customer-centric design of these services may lead to unfair distribution of exposure to the producers, which may adversely impact their well-being. On the other hand, a pure producer-centric design might become unfair to the customers. As more and more people are depending on such platforms to earn a living, it is important to ensure fairness to both producers and customers. In this work, by mapping a fair personalized recommendation problem to a constrained version of the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods, we propose to provide fairness guarantees for both sides. Formally, our proposed {\em FairRec} algorithm guarantees Maxi-Min Share ($\alpha$-MMS) of exposure for the producers, and Envy-Free up to One Item (EF1) fairness for the customers. Extensive evaluations over multiple real-world datasets show the effectiveness of {\em FairRec} in ensuring two-sided fairness while incurring a marginal loss in overall recommendation quality. Finally, we present a modification of FairRec (named as FairRecPlus) that at the cost of additional computation time, improves the recommendation performance for the customers, while maintaining the same fairness guarantees.

The (COVID-19) pandemic-induced restrictions on travel and social gatherings have prompted most conference organizers to move their events online. However, in contrast to physical conferences, virtual conferences face a challenge in efficiently scheduling talks, accounting for the availability of participants from different time-zones as well as their interests in attending different talks. In such settings, a natural objective for the conference organizers would be to maximize some global welfare measure, such as the total expected audience participation across all talks. However, we show that optimizing for global welfare could result in a schedule that is unfair to the stakeholders, i.e., the individual utilities for participants and speakers can be highly unequal. To address the fairness concerns, we formally define fairness notions for participants and speakers, and subsequently derive suitable fairness objectives for them. We show that the welfare and fairness objectives can be in conflict with each other, and there is a need to maintain a balance between these objective while caring for them simultaneously. Thus, we propose a joint optimization framework that allows conference organizers to design talk schedules that balance (i.e., allow trade-offs) between global welfare, participant fairness and the speaker fairness objectives. We show that the optimization problem can be solved using integer linear programming, and empirically evaluate the necessity and benefits of such joint optimization approach in virtual conference scheduling.