Abhishek Purushothama

Abhishek Purushothama, Emma Thronson, Alexia Guo et al.

Low-resource machine translation requires methods that differ from those used for high-resource languages. This paper proposes a novel in-context learning approach to support low-resource machine translation of the Coptic language to English, with syntactic augmentation from Universal Dependencies parses of input sentences. Building on existing work using bilingual dictionaries to support inference for vocabulary items, we add several representations of syntactic analyses to our inputs , specifically exploring the inclusion of raw parser outputs, verbalizations of parses in plain English, and targeted instructions of difficult constructions identified in sub-trees and how they can be translated. Our results show that while syntactic information alone is not as useful as dictionary-based glosses, combining retrieved dictionary items with syntactic information achieves significant gains across model sizes, achieving new state-of-the-art translation results for Coptic.

Zhuoxuan Ju, Jingni Wu, Abhishek Purushothama et al.

This paper presents DeDisCo, Georgetown University's entry in the DISRPT 2025 shared task on discourse relation classification. We test two approaches, using an mt5-based encoder and a decoder based approach using the openly available Qwen model. We also experiment on training with augmented dataset for low-resource languages using matched data translated automatically from English, as well as using some additional linguistic features inspired by entries in previous editions of the Shared Task. Our system achieves a macro-accuracy score of 71.28, and we provide some interpretation and error analysis for our results.

Abhishek Purushothama, Junghyun Min, Brandon Waldon et al.

Legal interpretation frequently involves assessing how a legal text, as understood by an 'ordinary' speaker of the language, applies to the set of facts characterizing a legal dispute in the U.S. judicial system. Recent scholarship has proposed that legal practitioners add large language models (LLMs) to their interpretive toolkit. This work offers an empirical argument against LLM interpretation as recently practiced by legal scholars and federal judges. Our investigation in English shows that models do not provide stable interpretive judgments: varying the question format can lead the model to wildly different conclusions. Moreover, the models show weak to moderate correlation with human judgment, with large variance across model and question variant, suggesting that it is dangerous to give much credence to the conclusions produced by generative AI.