Instruction tuning is an important step in making language models useful for direct user interaction. However, the legal domain is underrepresented in typical instruction datasets (e.g., only 10 out of 1600+ tasks in Super-NaturalInstructions). To study whether instruction tuning on legal datasets is necessary for strong legal reasoning, we aggregate 58 annotated legal datasets and write instructions for each, creating LawInstruct. LawInstruct covers 17 global jurisdictions, 24 languages and a total of 12M examples across diverse tasks such as legal QA, summarization of court cases, and legal argument mining. We evaluate our models on LegalBench, measuring legal reasoning across five categories in 162 challenging and realistic legal tasks, and MMLU, to measure potential drops in general reasoning capabilities. We find that legal-specific instruction tuning on Flan-T5 – yielding FLawN-T5 – improves performance on LegalBench across all model sizes, with an aggregate increase of 15 points or 50% over Flan-T5 for the base size. No model size shows performance drops in MMLU. We publish LawInstruct as a resource for further study of instruction tuning in the legal domain.

We present a tool, Text Characterization Toolkit (TCT), that researchers can use to study characteristics of large datasets. Furthermore, such properties can lead to understanding the influence of such attributes on models’ behaviour. Traditionally, in most NLP research, models are usually evaluated by reporting single-number performance scores on a number of readily available benchmarks, without much deeper analysis. Here, we argue that – especially given the well-known fact that benchmarks often contain biases, artefacts, and spurious correlations – deeper results analysis should become the de-facto standard when presenting new models or benchmarks. TCT aims at filling this gap by facilitating such deeper analysis for datasets at scale, where datasets can be for training/development/evaluation. TCT includes both an easy-to-use tool, as well as off-the-shelf scripts that can be used for specific analyses. We also present use-cases from several different domains. TCT is used to predict difficult examples for given well-known trained models; TCT is also used to identify (potentially harmful) biases present in a dataset.

Despite its importance to experimental design, statistical power (the probability that, given a real effect, an experiment will reject the null hypothesis) has largely been ignored by the NLP community. Underpowered experiments make it more difficult to discern the difference between statistical noise and meaningful model improvements, and increase the chances of exaggerated findings. By meta-analyzing a set of existing NLP papers and datasets, we characterize typical power for a variety of settings and conclude that underpowered experiments are common in the NLP literature. In particular, for several tasks in the popular GLUE benchmark, small test sets mean that most attempted comparisons to state of the art models will not be adequately powered. Similarly, based on reasonable assumptions, we find that the most typical experimental design for human rating studies will be underpowered to detect small model differences, of the sort that are frequently studied. For machine translation, we find that typical test sets of 2000 sentences have approximately 75% power to detect differences of 1 BLEU point. To improve the situation going forward, we give an overview of best practices for power analysis in NLP and release a series of notebooks to assist with future power analyses.