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 techniques to include task-relevant data in the pretraining stage of a language model. 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 before evaluation. Lastly, we 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.

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.

Surveys have recently gained popularity as a tool to study large language models. By comparing models’ survey responses to those of different 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 language models' survey responses 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 training data. As a result, models consistently appear to better represent subgroups whose aggregate statistics are closest to uniform for the survey under consideration, leading to potentially misguided conclusions about model alignment.

The geometric structure of data is an important inductive bias in machine learning. In this work, we characterize the data manifolds entailed by structural causal models. The strengths of the proposed framework are twofold: firstly, the geometric structure of the data manifolds is causally informed, and secondly, it enables causal reasoning about the data manifolds in an interventional and a counterfactual sense. We showcase the versatility of the proposed framework by applying it to the generation of causally-grounded counterfactual explanations for machine learning classifiers, measuring distances along the data manifold in a differential geometric-principled manner.

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.