Lucia Zheng

Peter Henderson, Mark S. Krass, Lucia Zheng et al. · stanford

One concern with the rise of large language models lies with their potential for significant harm, particularly from pretraining on biased, obscene, copyrighted, and private information. Emerging ethical approaches have attempted to filter pretraining material, but such approaches have been ad hoc and failed to take context into account. We offer an approach to filtering grounded in law, which has directly addressed the tradeoffs in filtering material. First, we gather and make available the Pile of Law, a 256GB (and growing) dataset of open-source English-language legal and administrative data, covering court opinions, contracts, administrative rules, and legislative records. Pretraining on the Pile of Law may help with legal tasks that have the promise to improve access to justice. Second, we distill the legal norms that governments have developed to constrain the inclusion of toxic or private content into actionable lessons for researchers and discuss how our dataset reflects these norms. Third, we show how the Pile of Law offers researchers the opportunity to learn such filtering rules directly from the data, providing an exciting new research direction in model-based processing.

Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee et al. · stanford

Language models (LMs) are becoming the foundation for almost all major language technologies, but their capabilities, limitations, and risks are not well understood. We present Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) to improve the transparency of language models. First, we taxonomize the vast space of potential scenarios (i.e. use cases) and metrics (i.e. desiderata) that are of interest for LMs. Then we select a broad subset based on coverage and feasibility, noting what's missing or underrepresented (e.g. question answering for neglected English dialects, metrics for trustworthiness). Second, we adopt a multi-metric approach: We measure 7 metrics (accuracy, calibration, robustness, fairness, bias, toxicity, and efficiency) for each of 16 core scenarios when possible (87.5% of the time). This ensures metrics beyond accuracy don't fall to the wayside, and that trade-offs are clearly exposed. We also perform 7 targeted evaluations, based on 26 targeted scenarios, to analyze specific aspects (e.g. reasoning, disinformation). Third, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 30 prominent language models (spanning open, limited-access, and closed models) on all 42 scenarios, 21 of which were not previously used in mainstream LM evaluation. Prior to HELM, models on average were evaluated on just 17.9% of the core HELM scenarios, with some prominent models not sharing a single scenario in common. We improve this to 96.0%: now all 30 models have been densely benchmarked on the same core scenarios and metrics under standardized conditions. Our evaluation surfaces 25 top-level findings. For full transparency, we release all raw model prompts and completions publicly for further analysis, as well as a general modular toolkit. We intend for HELM to be a living benchmark for the community, continuously updated with new scenarios, metrics, and models.

Dominik Stammbach, Kylie Zhang, Patty Liu et al.

AI tools are suggested as solutions to assist public agencies with heavy workloads. In public defense -- where a constitutional right to counsel meets the complexities of law, overwhelming caseloads, and constrained resources -- practitioners face especially taxing conditions. Yet, there is little evidence of how AI could meaningfully support defenders' day-to-day work. In partnership with the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, we develop the NJ BriefBank, a retrieval tool which surfaces relevant appellate briefs to streamline legal research and writing. We show that existing retrieval benchmarks fail to transfer to real public defense research, however adding domain knowledge improves retrieval quality. This includes query expansion with legal reasoning, domain-specific data and curated synthetic examples. To facilitate further research, we release a taxonomy of realistic defender search queries and a manually annotated evaluation dataset for public defense retrieval. This benchmark is highly correlated with a proprietary retrieval dataset annotated by experienced public defenders. Our work improves on the status quo of realistic legal retrieval benchmarking and illustrates one approach to applying AI in a real-world public interest setting.

Sarah H. Cen, Hannah Ismael, Lucia Zheng

Evidence lies at the core of litigation, but it is increasingly difficult to obtain in AI-related disputes. Even when a claimant's position has merit, cases are often settled or dismissed because decisive facts are hidden inside proprietary models, platform logs, and protected databases. Grounding our discussion in past and ongoing cases, we investigate how asymmetries in access, resources, and expertise can create significant barriers to evidence in AI-related cases. We show how developers and deployers resist disclosure through various strategies challenging the value of the evidence to the requesting party and the cost of evidence production. From these patterns we identify seven recurring sources of asymmetry -- access to models, data, documentation, logs, expertise, compute, and infrastructure -- that reflect a broader pattern that we call the privatization of proof: when control over proof falls in the hands of private actors that can demand justification for access while ensuring that justification remains out of reach. We further argue that different types of access can be fungible: in the absence of a certain type of access (e.g., to model internals), one may be able to use alternative forms of access (e.g., sufficient compute, query access, and access to user logs) and to obtain a functionally equivalent amount of information. We propose a three-part test that can help resolve AI access disputes in litigation, drawing on concepts such as proportionality and reasonable alternatives. Our test relies on a few observations, including that the cause of action can provide a baseline for access.

Lucia Zheng, Neel Guha, Javokhir Arifov et al.

As the legal community increasingly examines the use of large language models (LLMs) for various legal applications, legal AI developers have turned to retrieval-augmented LLMs ("RAG" systems) to improve system performance and robustness. An obstacle to the development of specialized RAG systems is the lack of realistic legal RAG benchmarks which capture the complexity of both legal retrieval and downstream legal question-answering. To address this, we introduce two novel legal RAG benchmarks: Bar Exam QA and Housing Statute QA. Our tasks correspond to real-world legal research tasks, and were produced through annotation processes which resemble legal research. We describe the construction of these benchmarks and the performance of existing retriever pipelines. Our results suggest that legal RAG remains a challenging application, thus motivating future research.

Kristina Gligoric, Myra Cheng, Lucia Zheng et al. · stanford

The use of words to convey speaker's intent is traditionally distinguished from the `mention' of words for quoting what someone said, or pointing out properties of a word. Here we show that computationally modeling this use-mention distinction is crucial for dealing with counterspeech online. Counterspeech that refutes problematic content often mentions harmful language but is not harmful itself (e.g., calling a vaccine dangerous is not the same as expressing disapproval of someone for calling vaccines dangerous). We show that even recent language models fail at distinguishing use from mention, and that this failure propagates to two key downstream tasks: misinformation and hate speech detection, resulting in censorship of counterspeech. We introduce prompting mitigations that teach the use-mention distinction, and show they reduce these errors. Our work highlights the importance of the use-mention distinction for NLP and CSS and offers ways to address it.

Joel Niklaus, Lucia Zheng, Arya D. McCarthy et al.

Instruction tuning is an important step in making language models useful for direct user interaction. However, the legal domain is underrepresented in typical instruction datasets (e.g., only 10 out of 1600+ tasks in Super-NaturalInstructions). To study whether instruction tuning on legal datasets is necessary for strong legal reasoning, we aggregate 58 annotated legal datasets and write instructions for each, creating LawInstruct. LawInstruct covers 17 global jurisdictions, 24 languages and a total of 12M examples across diverse tasks such as legal QA, summarization of court cases, and legal argument mining. We evaluate our models on LegalBench, measuring legal reasoning across five categories in 162 challenging and realistic legal tasks, and MMLU, to measure potential drops in general reasoning capabilities. We find that legal-specific instruction tuning on Flan-T5 - yielding FLawN-T5 - improves performance on LegalBench across all model sizes, with an aggregate increase of 15 points or 50% over Flan-T5 for the base size. No model size shows performance drops in MMLU. We publish LawInstruct as a resource for further study of instruction tuning in the legal domain.

Kylie Zhang, Nimra Nadeem, Lucia Zheng et al.

In oral arguments, judges probe attorneys with questions about the factual record, legal claims, and the strength of their arguments. To prepare for this questioning, both law schools and practicing attorneys rely on moot courts: practice simulations of appellate hearings. Leveraging a dataset of U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts, we examine whether AI models can effectively simulate justice-specific questioning for moot court-style training. Evaluating oral argument simulation is challenging because there is no single correct question for any given turn. Instead, effective questioning should reflect a combination of desirable qualities, such as anticipating substantive legal issues, detecting logical weaknesses, and maintaining an appropriately adversarial tone. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that assesses both the realism and pedagogical usefulness of simulated questions using complementary proxy metrics. We construct and evaluate both prompt-based and agentic oral argument simulators. We find that simulated questions are often perceived as realistic by human annotators and achieve high recall of ground truth substantive legal issues. However, models still face substantial shortcomings, including low diversity in question types and sycophancy. Importantly, these shortcomings would remain undetected under naive evaluation approaches.

Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli et al.

AI is undergoing a paradigm shift with the rise of models (e.g., BERT, DALL-E, GPT-3) that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models, ranging from their capabilities (e.g., language, vision, robotics, reasoning, human interaction) and technical principles(e.g., model architectures, training procedures, data, systems, security, evaluation, theory) to their applications (e.g., law, healthcare, education) and societal impact (e.g., inequity, misuse, economic and environmental impact, legal and ethical considerations). Though foundation models are based on standard deep learning and transfer learning, their scale results in new emergent capabilities,and their effectiveness across so many tasks incentivizes homogenization. Homogenization provides powerful leverage but demands caution, as the defects of the foundation model are inherited by all the adapted models downstream. Despite the impending widespread deployment of foundation models, we currently lack a clear understanding of how they work, when they fail, and what they are even capable of due to their emergent properties. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration commensurate with their fundamentally sociotechnical nature.

Lucia Zheng, Neel Guha, Brandon R. Anderson et al.

While self-supervised learning has made rapid advances in natural language processing, it remains unclear when researchers should engage in resource-intensive domain-specific pretraining (domain pretraining). The law, puzzlingly, has yielded few documented instances of substantial gains to domain pretraining in spite of the fact that legal language is widely seen to be unique. We hypothesize that these existing results stem from the fact that existing legal NLP tasks are too easy and fail to meet conditions for when domain pretraining can help. To address this, we first present CaseHOLD (Case Holdings On Legal Decisions), a new dataset comprised of over 53,000+ multiple choice questions to identify the relevant holding of a cited case. This dataset presents a fundamental task to lawyers and is both legally meaningful and difficult from an NLP perspective (F1 of 0.4 with a BiLSTM baseline). Second, we assess performance gains on CaseHOLD and existing legal NLP datasets. While a Transformer architecture (BERT) pretrained on a general corpus (Google Books and Wikipedia) improves performance, domain pretraining (using corpus of approximately 3.5M decisions across all courts in the U.S. that is larger than BERT's) with a custom legal vocabulary exhibits the most substantial performance gains with CaseHOLD (gain of 7.2% on F1, representing a 12% improvement on BERT) and consistent performance gains across two other legal tasks. Third, we show that domain pretraining may be warranted when the task exhibits sufficient similarity to the pretraining corpus: the level of performance increase in three legal tasks was directly tied to the domain specificity of the task. Our findings inform when researchers should engage resource-intensive pretraining and show that Transformer-based architectures, too, learn embeddings suggestive of distinct legal language.