DIRAS: Efficient LLM-Assisted Annotation of Document Relevance in Retrieval Augmented Generation

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely employed to ground responses to queries on domain-specific documents. But do RAG implementations leave out important information or excessively include irrelevant information? To allay these concerns, it is necessary to annotate domain-specific benchmarks to evaluate information retrieval (IR) performance, as relevance definitions vary across queries and domains. Furthermore, such benchmarks should be cost-efficiently annotated to avoid annotation selection bias. In this paper, we propose DIRAS (Domain-specific Information Retrieval Annotation with Scalability), a manual-annotation-free schema that fine-tunes open-sourced LLMs to annotate relevance labels with calibrated relevance probabilities. Extensive evaluation shows that DIRAS fine-tuned models achieve GPT-4-level performance on annotating and ranking unseen (query, document) pairs, and is helpful for real-world RAG development.

Aligning Large Language Models with Diverse Political Viewpoints

Large language models such as ChatGPT often exhibit striking political biases. If users query them about political information, they might take a normative stance and reinforce such biases. To overcome this, we align LLMs with diverse political viewpoints from 100,000 comments written by candidates running for national parliament in Switzerland. Such aligned models are able to generate more accurate political viewpoints from Swiss parties compared to commercial models such as ChatGPT. We also propose a procedure to generate balanced overviews from multiple viewpoints using such models.

Whose Preferences? Differences in Fairness Preferences and Their Impact on the Fairness of AI Utilizing Human Feedback

There is a growing body of work on learning from human feedback to align various aspects of machine learning systems with human values and preferences. We consider the setting of fairness in content moderation, in which human feedback is used to determine how two comments -- referencing different sensitive attribute groups -- should be treated in comparison to one another. With a novel dataset collected from Prolific and MTurk, we find significant gaps in fairness preferences depending on the race, age, political stance, educational level, and LGBTQ+ identity of annotators. We also demonstrate that demographics mentioned in text have a strong influence on how users perceive individual fairness in moderation. Further, we find that differences also exist in downstream classifiers trained to predict human preferences. Finally, we observe that an ensemble, giving equal weight to classifiers trained on annotations from different demographics, performs better for different demographic intersections; compared to a single classifier that gives equal weight to each annotation.

Towards Faithful and Robust LLM Specialists for Evidence-Based Question-Answering

Advances towards more faithful and traceable answers of Large Language Models (LLMs) are crucial for various research and practical endeavors. One avenue in reaching this goal is basing the answers on reliable sources. However, this Evidence-Based QA has proven to work insufficiently with LLMs in terms of citing the correct sources (source quality) and truthfully representing the information within sources (answer attributability). In this work, we systematically investigate how to robustly fine-tune LLMs for better source quality and answer attributability. Specifically, we introduce a data generation pipeline with automated data quality filters, which can synthesize diversified high-quality training and testing data at scale. We further introduce four test sets to benchmark the robustness of fine-tuned specialist models. Extensive evaluation shows that fine-tuning on synthetic data improves performance on both in- and out-of-distribution. Furthermore, we show that data quality, which can be drastically improved by proposed quality filters, matters more than quantity in improving Evidence-Based QA.

AFaCTA: Assisting the Annotation of Factual Claim Detection with Reliable LLM Annotators

With the rise of generative AI, automated fact-checking methods to combat misinformation are becoming more and more important. However, factual claim detection, the first step in a fact-checking pipeline, suffers from two key issues that limit its scalability and generalizability: (1) inconsistency in definitions of the task and what a claim is, and (2) the high cost of manual annotation. To address (1), we review the definitions in related work and propose a unifying definition of factual claims that focuses on verifiability. To address (2), we introduce AFaCTA (Automatic Factual Claim deTection Annotator), a novel framework that assists in the annotation of factual claims with the help of large language models (LLMs). AFaCTA calibrates its annotation confidence with consistency along three predefined reasoning paths. Extensive evaluation and experiments in the domain of political speech reveal that AFaCTA can efficiently assist experts in annotating factual claims and training high-quality classifiers, and can work with or without expert supervision. Our analyses also result in PoliClaim, a comprehensive claim detection dataset spanning diverse political topics.

Where Do People Tell Stories Online? Story Detection Across Online Communities

People share stories online for a myriad of purposes, whether as a means of self-disclosure, processing difficult personal experiences, providing needed information or entertainment, or persuading others to share their beliefs. Better understanding of online storytelling can illuminate the dynamics of social movements, sensemaking practices, persuasion strategies, and more. However, unlike other media such as books and visual content where the narrative nature of the content is often overtly signaled at the document level, studying storytelling in online communities is challenging due to the mixture of storytelling and non-storytelling behavior, which can be interspersed within documents and across diverse topics and settings. We introduce a codebook and create the Storytelling in Online Communities Corpus, an expert-annotated dataset of 502 English-language posts and comments with labeled story and event spans. Using our corpus, we train and evaluate an online story detection model, which we use to investigate the role storytelling of in different social contexts. We identify distinctive features of online storytelling, the prevalence of storytelling among different communities, and the conversational patterns of storytelling.

LePaRD: A Large-Scale Dataset of Judges Citing Precedents

We present the Legal Passage Retrieval Dataset LePaRD. LePaRD is a massive collection of U.S. federal judicial citations to precedent in context. The dataset aims to facilitate work on legal passage prediction, a challenging practice-oriented legal retrieval and reasoning task. Legal passage prediction seeks to predict relevant passages from precedential court decisions given the context of a legal argument. We extensively evaluate various retrieval approaches on LePaRD, and find that classification appears to work best. However, we note that legal precedent prediction is a difficult task, and there remains significant room for improvement. We hope that by publishing LePaRD, we will encourage others to engage with a legal NLP task that promises to help expand access to justice by reducing the burden associated with legal research. A subset of the LePaRD dataset is freely available and the whole dataset will be released upon publication.

Enhancing Public Understanding of Court Opinions with Automated Summarizers

Written judicial opinions are an important tool for building public trust in court decisions, yet they can be difficult for non-experts to understand. We present a pipeline for using an AI assistant to generate simplified summaries of judicial opinions. These are more accessible to the public and more easily understood by non-experts, We show in a survey experiment that the simplified summaries help respondents understand the key features of a ruling. We discuss how to integrate legal domain knowledge into studies using large language models. Our results suggest a role both for AI assistants to inform the public, and for lawyers to guide the process of generating accessible summaries.

WCLD: Curated Large Dataset of Criminal Cases from Wisconsin Circuit Courts

Machine learning based decision-support tools in criminal justice systems are subjects of intense discussions and academic research. There are important open questions about the utility and fairness of such tools. Academic researchers often rely on a few small datasets that are not sufficient to empirically study various real-world aspects of these questions. In this paper, we contribute WCLD, a curated large dataset of 1.5 million criminal cases from circuit courts in the U.S. state of Wisconsin. We used reliable public data from 1970 to 2020 to curate attributes like prior criminal counts and recidivism outcomes. The dataset contains large number of samples from five racial groups, in addition to information like sex and age (at judgment and first offense). Other attributes in this dataset include neighborhood characteristics obtained from census data, detailed types of offense, charge severity, case decisions, sentence lengths, year of filing etc. We also provide pseudo-identifiers for judge, county and zipcode. The dataset will not only enable researchers to more rigorously study algorithmic fairness in the context of criminal justice, but also relate algorithmic challenges with various systemic issues. We also discuss in detail the process of constructing the dataset and provide a datasheet. The WCLD dataset is available at \url{https://clezdata.github.io/wcld/}.

The Law and NLP: Bridging Disciplinary Disconnects

Legal practice is intrinsically rooted in the fabric of language, yet legal practitioners and scholars have been slow to adopt tools from natural language processing (NLP). At the same time, the legal system is experiencing an access to justice crisis, which could be partially alleviated with NLP. In this position paper, we argue that the slow uptake of NLP in legal practice is exacerbated by a disconnect between the needs of the legal community and the focus of NLP researchers. In a review of recent trends in the legal NLP literature, we find limited overlap between the legal NLP community and legal academia. Our interpretation is that some of the most popular legal NLP tasks fail to address the needs of legal practitioners. We discuss examples of legal NLP tasks that promise to bridge disciplinary disconnects and highlight interesting areas for legal NLP research that remain underexplored.