Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo

Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Vedant Nanda, Rediet Abebe et al.

Annotation and classification of legal text are central components of empirical legal research. Traditionally, these tasks are often delegated to trained research assistants. Motivated by the advances in language modeling, empirical legal scholars are increasingly turning to prompting commercial models, hoping that it will alleviate the significant cost of human annotation. Despite growing use, our understanding of how to best utilize large language models for legal annotation remains limited. To bridge this gap, we introduce CaselawQA, a benchmark comprising 260 legal annotation tasks, nearly all new to the machine learning community. We demonstrate that commercial models, such as GPT-4.5 and Claude 3.7 Sonnet, achieve non-trivial yet highly variable accuracy, generally falling short of the performance required for legal work. We then demonstrate that small, lightly fine-tuned models outperform commercial models. A few hundred to a thousand labeled examples are usually enough to achieve higher accuracy. Our work points to a viable alternative to the predominant practice of prompting commercial models. For concrete legal annotation tasks with some available labeled data, researchers are likely better off using a fine-tuned open-source model.

Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Moritz Hardt, Celestine Mendler-Dünner

Surveys have recently gained popularity as a tool to study large language models. By comparing survey responses of models to those of human reference populations, researchers aim to infer the demographics, political opinions, or values best represented by current language models. In this work, we critically examine this methodology on the basis of the well-established American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau. Evaluating 43 different language models using de-facto standard prompting methodologies, we establish two dominant patterns. First, models' responses are governed by ordering and labeling biases, for example, towards survey responses labeled with the letter "A". Second, when adjusting for these systematic biases through randomized answer ordering, models across the board trend towards uniformly random survey responses, irrespective of model size or pre-training data. As a result, in contrast to conjectures from prior work, survey-derived alignment measures often permit a simple explanation: models consistently appear to better represent subgroups whose aggregate statistics are closest to uniform for any survey under consideration.

Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Florian E. Dorner, Moritz Hardt

We study a fundamental problem in the evaluation of large language models that we call training on the test task. Unlike wrongful practices like training on the test data, leakage, or data contamination, training on the test task is not a malpractice. Rather, the term describes a growing set of practices that utilize knowledge about evaluation tasks at training time. We demonstrate that training on the test task confounds both relative model evaluations and claims about emergent capabilities. We argue that the seeming superiority of one model family over another may be explained by a different degree of training on the test task. To this end, we propose an effective method to adjust for the effect of training on the test task on benchmark evaluations. Put simply, to fine-tune each model under comparison on the same task-relevant data prior to evaluation. We then show that instances of emergent behavior disappear gradually as models train on the test task. Our work promotes a new perspective on the evaluation of large language models, with broad implications for benchmarking and the study of emergent capabilities.

Prasanna Mayilvahanan, Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Thaddäus Wiedemer et al.

With the advent of DeepSeek-R1, a new wave of reinforcement learning (RL) methods has emerged that seem to unlock stronger mathematical reasoning. However, a closer look at the open-source ecosystem reveals a critical limitation: with sufficiently many draws (e.g., $\texttt{pass@1024}$), many existing base models already solve nearly all questions on widely used math benchmarks such as MATH-500 and AIME 2024. This suggests that the RL fine-tuning methods prevalent in the LLM reasoning literature largely sharpen existing solution modes rather than discovering entirely new ones. Such sharpening stands in contrast to the broader promise of RL: to foster exploration and to acquire new skills. To move beyond this plateau, we introduce MATH-Beyond (MATH-B), a benchmark deliberately constructed to defeat common open-source models of up to 8B parameters even under large sampling budgets. Improving performance on our benchmark via RL requires methods that learn to reason in ways that go beyond base model capabilities in repeated sampling. Since the problems are drawn from subsets of DAPO-Math-17K and DeepScaleR datasets, they remain topically equivalent to standard high-school math. Validating our premise, RL fine-tuned models such as Nemotron-Research-Reasoning-Qwen-1.5B and DeepScaleR-1.5B-Preview perform poorly on MATH-B at $\texttt{pass@1024}$, showing how existing approaches fall short on tackling harder instances. We hope MATH-B will catalyze exploration-driven RL approaches that elicit deeper reasoning capabilities. We release MATH-B at https://huggingface.co/datasets/brendel-group/MATH-Beyond.

Guanhua Zhang, Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Moritz Hardt

Existing language model benchmarks provide contradictory model rankings, even for benchmarks that aim to capture similar skills. This dilemma of conflicting rankings hampers model selection, clouds model comparisons, and adds confusion to a growing ecosystem of competing models. In this paper, we take a different perspective on model comparison: instead of relying on out-of-the-box performance via direct evaluation, we compare model potential by providing each model with identical benchmark-specific fine-tuning before evaluation. We call this approach train-before-test. Our primary contribution is a comprehensive empirical evaluation of model potential across 24 benchmarks and 61 models. First, we demonstrate that model potential rankings obtained through train-before-test exhibit remarkable consistency across all benchmarks. Whereas traditional rankings demonstrate little external validity under direct evaluation, they enjoy a significant degree of external validity when applying train-before-test: model potential rankings transfer gracefully from one benchmark to another. Second, train-before-test restores the connection between perplexity and downstream task performance, lost under direct evaluation. Remarkably, even pre-finetuning perplexity of a base model predicts post-finetuning downstream performance, suggesting that ranking consistency reflects inherent model potential rather than fine-tuning artifacts. Finally, train-before-test reduces the model-score matrix to essentially rank one, indicating that model potential is dominated by one latent factor, uncovered by train-before-test. Our work supports the recommendation to make train-before-test a default component of LLM benchmarking.

Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Amir-Hossein Karimi, Bernhard Schölkopf

Algorithmic recourse seeks to provide actionable recommendations for individuals to overcome unfavorable classification outcomes from automated decision-making systems. Recourse recommendations should ideally be robust to reasonably small uncertainty in the features of the individual seeking recourse. In this work, we formulate the adversarially robust recourse problem and show that recourse methods that offer minimally costly recourse fail to be robust. We then present methods for generating adversarially robust recourse for linear and for differentiable classifiers. Finally, we show that regularizing the decision-making classifier to behave locally linearly and to rely more strongly on actionable features facilitates the existence of adversarially robust recourse.