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 commercial models, hoping that it will alleviate the significant cost of human annotation. In this work, we present a comprehensive analysis of large language models’ current abilities to perform legal annotation tasks. To do so, we construct CaselawQA, a benchmark comprising 260 legal text classification 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 accuracy but generally fall short of the performance required for legal work. We then demonstrate that small, lightly fine-tuned models vastly outperform commercial models. A few dozen to a few hundred 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. Code, datasets, and fine-tuned models are available at https://github.com/socialfoundations/lawma.

Elisabeth Kirsten, Ivan Habernal, Vedant Nanda, Muhammad Bilal Zafar. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025.

In this paper, we focus on the challenging task of reliably estimating factual knowledge that is embedded inside large language models (LLMs). To avoid reliability concerns with prior approaches, we propose to eliminate prompt engineering when probing LLMs for factual knowledge. Our approach, called Zero-Prompt Latent Knowledge Estimator (ZP-LKE), leverages the in-context learning ability of LLMs to communicate both the factual knowledge question as well as the expected answer format. Our knowledge estimator is both conceptually simpler (i.e., doesn't depend on meta-linguistic judgments of LLMs) and easier to apply (i.e., is not LLM-specific), and we demonstrate that it can surface more of the latent knowledge embedded in LLMs. We also investigate how different design choices affect the performance of ZP-LKE. Using the proposed estimator, we perform a large-scale evaluation of the factual knowledge of a variety of open-source LLMs, like OPT, Pythia, Llama(2), Mistral, Gemma, etc. over a large set of relations and facts from the Wikidata knowledge base. We observe differences in the factual knowledge between different model families and models of different sizes, that some relations are consistently better known than others but that models differ in the precise facts they know, and differences in the knowledge of base models and their finetuned counterparts. Code available at: https://github.com/QinyuanWu0710/ZeroPrompt_LKE

Online bipartite-matching platforms are ubiquitous and find applications in important areas such as crowdsourcing and ridesharing. In the most general form, the platform consists of three entities: two sides to be matched and a platform operator that decides the matching. The design of algorithms for such platforms has traditionally focused on the operator’s (expected) profit. Since fairness has become an important consideration that was ignored in the existing algorithms a collection of online matching algorithms have been developed that give a fair treatment guarantee for one side of the market at the expense of a drop in the operator’s profit. In this paper, we generalize the existing work to offer fair treatment guarantees to both sides of the market simultaneously, at a calculated worst case drop to operator profit. We consider group and individual Rawlsian fairness criteria. Moreover, our algorithms have theoretical guarantees and have adjustable parameters that can be tuned as desired to balance the trade-off between the utilities of the three sides. We also derive hardness results that give clear upper bounds over the performance of any algorithm.

An evaluation criterion for safe and trustworthy deep learning is how well the invariances captured by representations of deep neural networks (DNNs) are shared with humans. We identify challenges in measuring these invariances. Prior works used gradient-based methods to generate identically represented inputs (IRIs), ie, inputs which have identical representations (on a given layer) of a neural network, and thus capture invariances of a given network. One necessary criterion for a network's invariances to align with human perception is for its IRIs look 'similar' to humans. Prior works, however, have mixed takeaways; some argue that later layers of DNNs do not learn human-like invariances yet others seem to indicate otherwise. We argue that the loss function used to generate IRIs can heavily affect takeaways about invariances of the network and is the primary reason for these conflicting findings. We propose an adversarial regularizer on the IRI generation loss that finds IRIs that make any model appear to have very little shared invariance with humans. Based on this evidence, we argue that there is scope for improving models to have human-like invariances, and further, to have meaningful comparisons between models one should use IRIs generated using the regularizer-free loss. We then conduct an in-depth investigation of how different components (eg architectures, training losses, data augmentations) of the deep learning pipeline contribute to learning models that have good alignment with humans. We find that architectures with residual connections trained using a (self-supervised) contrastive loss with l_p ball adversarial data augmentation tend to learn invariances that are most aligned with humans. Code: github.com/nvedant07/Human-NN-Alignment

Representations learned by pre-training a neural network on a large dataset are increasingly used successfully to perform a variety of downstream tasks. In this work, we take a closer look at how features are encoded in such pre-trained representations. We find that learned representations in a given layer exhibit a degree of diffuse redundancy, ie, any randomly chosen subset of neurons in the layer that is larger than a threshold size shares a large degree of similarity with the full layer and is able to perform similarly as the whole layer on a variety of downstream tasks. For example, a linear probe trained on $20\%$ of randomly picked neurons from the penultimate layer of a ResNet50 pre-trained on ImageNet1k achieves an accuracy within $5\%$ of a linear probe trained on the full layer of neurons for downstream CIFAR10 classification. We conduct experiments on different neural architectures (including CNNs and Transformers) pre-trained on both ImageNet1k and ImageNet21k and evaluate a variety of downstream tasks taken from the VTAB benchmark. We find that the loss \& dataset used during pre-training largely govern the degree of diffuse redundancy and the "critical mass" of neurons needed often depends on the downstream task, suggesting that there is a task-inherent redundancy-performance Pareto frontier. Our findings shed light on the nature of representations learned by pre-trained deep neural networks and suggest that entire layers might not be necessary to perform many downstream tasks. We investigate the potential for exploiting this redundancy to achieve efficient generalization for downstream tasks and also draw caution to certain possible unintended consequences. Our code is available at \url{https://github.com/nvedant07/diffused-redundancy}.

A major challenge in studying robustness in deep learning is defining the set of “meaningless” perturbations to which a given Neural Network (NN) should be invariant. Most work on robustness implicitly uses a human as the reference model to define such perturbations. Our work offers a new view on robustness by using another reference NN to define the set of perturbations a given NN should be invariant to, thus generalizing the reliance on a reference “human NN” to any NN. This makes measuring robustness equivalent to measuring the extent to which two NNs share invariances. We propose a measure called \stir, which faithfully captures the extent to which two NNs share invariances. \stir re-purposes existing representation similarity measures to make them suitable for measuring shared invariances. Using our measure, we are able to gain insights about how shared invariances vary with changes in weight initialization, architecture, loss functions, and training dataset. Our implementation is available at: \url{https://github.com/nvedant07/STIR}.

Rideshare platforms, when assigning requests to drivers, tend to maximize profit for the system and/or minimize waiting time for riders. Such platforms can exacerbate biases that drivers may have over certain types of requests. We consider the case of peak hours when the demand for rides is more than the supply of drivers. Drivers are well aware of their advantage during the peak hours and can choose to be selective about which rides to accept. Moreover, if in such a scenario, the assignment of requests to drivers (by the platform) is made only to maximize profit and/or minimize wait time for riders, requests of a certain type (e.g., from a non-popular pickup location, or to a non-popular drop-off location) might never be assigned to a driver. Such a system can be highly unfair to riders. However, increasing fairness might come at a cost of the overall profit made by the rideshare platform. To balance these conflicting goals, we present a flexible, non-adaptive algorithm, NAdap, that allows the platform designer to control the profit and fairness of the system via parameters α and β respectively. We model the matching problem as an online bipartite matching where the set of drivers is offline and requests arrive online. Upon the arrival of a request, we use NAdap to assign it to a driver (the driver might then choose to accept or reject it) or reject the request. We formalize the measures of profit and fairness in our setting and show that by using NAdap, the competitive ratios for profit and fairness measures would be no worse than α/e and β/e respectively. Extensive experimental results on both real-world and synthetic datasets confirm the validity of our theoretical lower bounds. Additionally, they show that NAdap under some choice of (α, β) can beat two natural heuristics, Greedy and Uniform, on both fairness and profit. Code is available at: https://github.com/nvedant07/rideshare-fairness-peak/.

Rideshare platforms, when assigning requests to drivers, tend to maximize profit for the system and/or minimize waiting time for riders. Such platforms can exacerbate biases that drivers may have over certain types of requests. We consider the case of peak hours when the demand for rides is more than the supply of drivers. Drivers are well aware of their advantage during the peak hours and can choose to be selective about which rides to accept. Moreover, if in such a scenario, the assignment of requests to drivers (by the platform) is made only to maximize profit and/or minimize wait time for riders, requests of a certain type (e.g., from a non-popular pickup location, or to a non-popular drop-off location) might never be assigned to a driver. Such a system can be highly unfair to riders. However, increasing fairness might come at a cost of the overall profit made by the rideshare platform. To balance these conflicting goals, we present a flexible, non-adaptive algorithm, NAdap, that allows the platform designer to control the profit and fairness of the system via parameters α and β respectively.We model the matching problem as an online bipartite matching where the set of drivers is offline and requests arrive online. Upon the arrival of a request, we use NAdap to assign it to a driver (the driver might then choose to accept or reject it) or reject the request. We formalize the measures of profit and fairness in our setting and show that by using NAdap, the competitive ratios for profit and fairness measures would be no worse than α/e and β/e respectively. Extensive experimental results on both real-world and synthetic datasets confirm the validity of our theoretical lower bounds. Additionally, they show that NAdap under some choice of (α, β) can beat two natural heuristics, Greedy and Uniform, on both fairness and profit. Code is available at: https://github.com/nvedant07/rideshare-fairness-peak/. Full paper can be found in the proceedings of AAAI 2020 and on ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.08388).

Most existing notions of algorithmic fairness are one-shot: they ensure some form of allocative equality at the time of decision making, but do not account for the adverse impact of the algorithmic decisions today on the long-term welfare and prosperity of certain segments of the population. We take a broader perspective on algorithmic fairness. We propose an effort-based measure of fairness and present a data-driven framework for characterizing the long-term impact of algorithmic policies on reshaping the underlying population. Motivated by the psychological literature on social learning and the economic literature on equality of opportunity, we propose a micro-scale model of how individuals may respond to decision-making algorithms. We employ existing measures of segregation from sociology and economics to quantify the resulting macro- scale population-level change. Importantly, we observe that different models may shift the group- conditional distribution of qualifications in different directions. Our findings raise a number of important questions regarding the formalization of fairness for decision-making models.

In this paper we analyze Facebook's Free Basics program, which provides free Internet access to a restricted set of web services. As the program grows to 60+ developing countries, an independent and data-driven audit of its scope and outreach is highly relevant to the ICTD community.