Understanding and effectively responding to email communication remains a critical yet complex challenge for current AI techniques, especially in corporate environments. These tasks are further complicated by the need for domain-specific knowledge, accurate entity recognition, and high precision to prevent costly errors. While recent advances in AI, specifically Large Language Models (LLMs), have made strides in natural language understanding, they often lack business-specific expertise required in such settings. In this work, we present Advanced Messaging Platform (AMP), a production-grade AI pipeline that automates email response generation at scale in real-world enterprise settings. AMP has been in production for more than a year, processing thousands of emails daily while maintaining high accuracy and adaptability to evolving business needs.

Domain-specific multilingual terminology is essential for accurate machine translation (MT) and cross-lingual NLP applications. We present a gold-standard terminology resource for the tax and financial education domains, built from curated governmental publications and covering seven typologically diverse languages: English, Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese (traditional and simplified) and Haitian Creole. Using this resource, we assess various MT systems and LLMs on translation quality and term accuracy. We annotate over 3,000 terms for domain-specificity, facilitating a comparison between domain-specific and general term translations, and observe models’ challenges with specialized tax terms. We also analyze the case of terminology-aided translation, and the LLMs’ performance in extracting the translated term given the context. Our results highlight model limitations and the value of high-quality terminologies for advancing MT research in specialized contexts.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit pronounced conservative bias in relation extraction tasks, frequently defaulting to no_relation label when an appropriate option is unavailable. While this behavior helps prevent incorrect relation assignments, our analysis reveals that it also leads to significant information loss when reasoning is not explicitly included in the output. We systematically evaluate this trade-off across multiple prompts, datasets, and relation types, introducing the concept of Hobson’s choice to capture scenarios where models opt for safe but uninformative labels over hallucinated ones. Our findings suggest that conservative bias occurs twice as often as hallucination. To quantify this effect, we use SBERT and LLM prompts to capture the semantic similarity between conservative bias behaviors in constrained prompts and labels generated from semi-constrained and open-ended prompts.