Ritik Sachin Parkar

Ritik Sachin Parkar, Jaehyung Kim, Jong Inn Park et al.

Instruction tuning benefits from large and diverse datasets; however, creating such datasets involves a high cost of human labeling. While synthetic datasets generated by large language models (LLMs) have partly solved this issue, they often contain low-quality data. One effective solution is selectively annotating unlabelled instructions, especially given the relative ease of acquiring unlabeled instructions or texts from various sources. However, how to select unlabelled instructions is not well-explored, especially in the context of LLMs. Therefore, we introduce SelectLLM, an alternative framework that leverages the capabilities of LLMs to select unlabeled instructions more effectively. Specifically, SelectLLM consists of two key steps: Coreset-based clustering of unlabelled instructions for enlarging diversity and prompting of LLM to identify the most beneficial instructions within each cluster. We evaluate SelectLLM on AlpacaEval2 and MT-Bench, demonstrating its ability to outperform state-of-the-art methods like Alpagasus. In addition, we compare the performance and compatibility of SelectLLM with various LLMs, such as ChatGPT, LLaMA-3.1-70B, and Gemma-2-27b. SelectLLM's adaptability and robustness are further evidenced by its ability to maintain high performance across both human and synthetic datasets. All code and data are publicly available (https://github.com/minnesotanlp/select-llm).

Debarati Das, Khanh Chi Le, Ritik Sachin Parkar et al.

Legal practitioners, particularly those early in their careers, face complex, high-stakes tasks that require adaptive, context-sensitive reasoning. While AI holds promise in supporting legal work, current datasets and models are narrowly focused on isolated subtasks and fail to capture the end-to-end decision-making required in real-world practice. To address this gap, we introduce LawFlow, a dataset of complete end-to-end legal workflows collected from trained law students, grounded in real-world business entity formation scenarios. Unlike prior datasets focused on input-output pairs or linear chains of thought, LawFlow captures dynamic, modular, and iterative reasoning processes that reflect the ambiguity, revision, and client-adaptive strategies of legal practice. Using LawFlow, we compare human and LLM-generated workflows, revealing systematic differences in structure, reasoning flexibility, and plan execution. Human workflows tend to be modular and adaptive, while LLM workflows are more sequential, exhaustive, and less sensitive to downstream implications. Our findings also suggest that legal professionals prefer AI to carry out supportive roles, such as brainstorming, identifying blind spots, and surfacing alternatives, rather than executing complex workflows end-to-end. Our results highlight both the current limitations of LLMs in supporting complex legal workflows and opportunities for developing more collaborative, reasoning-aware legal AI systems. All data and code are available on our project page (https://minnesotanlp.github.io/LawFlow-website/).