Samuel Dahan

Jonathan Li, Rohan Bhambhoria, Samuel Dahan et al.

Generative AI models, such as the GPT and Llama series, have significant potential to assist laypeople in answering legal questions. However, little prior work focuses on the data sourcing, inference, and evaluation of these models in the context of laypersons. To this end, we propose a human-centric legal NLP pipeline, covering data sourcing, inference, and evaluation. We introduce and release a dataset, LegalQA, with real and specific legal questions spanning from employment law to criminal law, corresponding answers written by legal experts, and citations for each answer. We develop an automatic evaluation protocol for this dataset, then show that retrieval-augmented generation from only 850 citations in the train set can match or outperform internet-wide retrieval, despite containing 9 orders of magnitude less data. Finally, we propose future directions for open-sourced efforts, which fall behind closed-sourced models.

Chu Fei Luo, Samuel Dahan, Xiaodan Zhu

Test-time reasoning has become a significant field of study since the introduction of chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, the mechanisms of this reasoning process are still under-explored -- from the same input prompt, and even the same partial solution, LLMs can produce varied answers if sampled multiple times. We propose to leverage question-asking as an inference-time intervention that articulates information about the model's hidden state. To achieve that, we present a student-teacher setting where a student asks questions to a teacher. We train a probe on the student's hidden state before and after asking a question and find it is predictive of the trajectory's final correctness, even before generating the teacher's answer. This suggests there is a meaningful signal from the self-diagnosis that occurs during question generation rather than information transfer from the teacher. We then frame question-asking as a sequential decision problem, using this probe as a quality score, and define a gating policy to ask questions that maximize likelihood of correctness. We find that the success of question-asking as an intervention is largely dependent on the model's self-consistency. Our empirical results show a gap between detection and recovery; while our gating policy captures model correctness and uncertainty, interventions are equally likely to harm correct trajectories as they are to recover incorrect ones. This gap between diagnosis and correction has broader implications on language models' capacity for self-refinement under uncertainty.

Rohan Bhambhoria, Samuel Dahan, Jonathan Li et al.

This study evaluates the performance of general-purpose AI, like ChatGPT, in legal question-answering tasks, highlighting significant risks to legal professionals and clients. It suggests leveraging foundational models enhanced by domain-specific knowledge to overcome these issues. The paper advocates for creating open-source legal AI systems to improve accuracy, transparency, and narrative diversity, addressing general AI's shortcomings in legal contexts.

Chu Fei Luo, Samuel Dahan, Xiaodan Zhu

As language models have a greater impact on society, it is important to ensure they are aligned to a diverse range of perspectives and are able to reflect nuance in human values. However, the most popular training paradigms for modern language models often assume there is one optimal answer for every query, leading to generic responses and poor alignment. In this work, we aim to enhance pluralistic alignment of language models in a low-resource setting with two methods: pluralistic decoding and model steering. We empirically demonstrate that model steering offers consistent improvement over zero-shot and few-shot baselines with only 50 annotated samples. Our proposed methods decrease false positives in several high-stakes tasks such as hate speech detection and misinformation detection, and improves the distributional alignment to human values in GlobalOpinionQA. We hope our work highlights the importance of diversity and how language models can be adapted to consider nuanced perspectives.

Radin Shayanfar, Chu Fei Luo, Rohan Bhambhoria et al.

Building Task-Oriented Dialogue (TOD) systems that generalize across different tasks remains a challenging problem. Data-driven approaches often struggle to transfer effectively to unseen tasks. While recent schema-based TOD frameworks improve generalization by decoupling task logic from language understanding, their reliance on neural or generative models often obscures how task schemas influence behaviour and hence impair interpretability. In this work, we introduce a novel framework, CoDial (Code for Dialogue), which converts a TOD task schema, represented as a novel structured heterogeneous graph, to programmatic LLM guardrailing code, such as NVIDIA's Colang, enabling interpretable and efficient alignment of dialogue policies during inference. We introduce two paradigms, $\text{CoDial}_{\text{free}}$ and $\text{CoDial}_{\text{structured}}$ for generating LLM guardrails, and propose a feedback mechanism that integrates human feedback to iteratively improve the generated code. Empirically, CoDial achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on the widely used STAR dataset and is on par with SOTA on the MultiWOZ dataset, while also providing interpretability. We additionally demonstrate CoDial's iterative improvement via manual and LLM-aided feedback, making it a practical tool for expert-guided alignment of LLMs in high-stakes domains.

Chu Fei Luo, Rohan Bhambhoria, Samuel Dahan et al.

Deep learning has made significant progress in the past decade, and demonstrates potential to solve problems with extensive social impact. In high-stakes decision making areas such as law, experts often require interpretability for automatic systems to be utilized in practical settings. In this work, we attempt to address these requirements applied to the important problem of legal citation prediction (LCP). We design the task with parallels to the thought-process of lawyers, i.e., with reference to both precedents and legislative provisions. After initial experimental results, we refine the target citation predictions with the feedback of legal experts. Additionally, we introduce a prototype architecture to add interpretability, achieving strong performance while adhering to decision parameters used by lawyers. Our study builds on and leverages the state-of-the-art language processing models for law, while addressing vital considerations for high-stakes tasks with practical societal impact.

Chu Fei Luo, Rohan Bhambhoria, Xiaodan Zhu et al.

Hate speech causes widespread and deep-seated societal issues. Proper enforcement of hate speech laws is key for protecting groups of people against harmful and discriminatory language. However, determining what constitutes hate speech is a complex task that is highly open to subjective interpretations. Existing works do not align their systems with enforceable definitions of hate speech, which can make their outputs inconsistent with the goals of regulators. This research introduces a new perspective and task for enforceable hate speech detection centred around legal definitions, and a dataset annotated on violations of eleven possible definitions by legal experts. Given the challenge of identifying clear, legally enforceable instances of hate speech, we augment the dataset with expert-generated samples and an automatically mined challenge set. We experiment with grounding the model decision in these definitions using zero-shot and few-shot prompting. We then report results on several large language models (LLMs). With this task definition, automatic hate speech detection can be more closely aligned to enforceable laws, and hence assist in more rigorous enforcement of legal protections against harmful speech in public forums.

Rohan Bhambhoria, Hui Liu, Samuel Dahan et al.

Over the past several years, legal applications of deep learning have been on the rise. However, as with other high-stakes decision making areas, the requirement for interpretability is of crucial importance. Current models utilized by legal practitioners are more of the conventional machine learning type, wherein they are inherently interpretable, yet unable to harness the performance capabilities of data-driven deep learning models. In this work, we utilize deep learning models in the area of trademark law to shed light on the issue of likelihood of confusion between trademarks. Specifically, we introduce a model-agnostic interpretable intermediate layer, a technique which proves to be effective for legal documents. Furthermore, we utilize weakly supervised learning by means of a curriculum learning strategy, effectively demonstrating the improved performance of a deep learning model. This is in contrast to the conventional models which are only able to utilize the limited number of expensive manually-annotated samples by legal experts. Although the methods presented in this work tackles the task of risk of confusion for trademarks, it is straightforward to extend them to other fields of law, or more generally, to other similar high-stakes application scenarios.