Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Joel Niklaus

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

2 papers
2 author rows

Possible papers

2

ICLR Conference 2025 Conference Paper

INCLUDE: Evaluating Multilingual Language Understanding with Regional Knowledge

  • Angelika Romanou
  • Negar Foroutan
  • Anna Sotnikova
  • Zeming Chen 0001
  • Sree Harsha Nelaturu
  • Shivalika Singh
  • Rishabh Maheshwary
  • Micol Altomare

The performance differential of large language models (LLM) between languages hinders their effective deployment in many regions, inhibiting the potential economic and societal value of generative AI tools in many communities. However, the development of functional LLMs in many languages (i.e., multilingual LLMs) is bottlenecked by the lack of high-quality evaluation resources in languages other than English. Moreover, current practices in multilingual benchmark construction often translate English resources, ignoring the regional and cultural knowledge of the environments in which multilingual systems would be used. In this work, we construct an evaluation suite of 197,243 QA pairs from local exam sources to measure the capabilities of multilingual LLMs in a variety of regional contexts. Our novel resource, INCLUDE, is a comprehensive knowledge- and reasoning-centric benchmark across 44 written languages that evaluates multilingual LLMs for performance in the actual language environments where they would be deployed.

NeurIPS Conference 2023 Conference Paper

LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models

  • Neel Guha
  • Julian Nyarko
  • Daniel Ho
  • Christopher Ré
  • Adam Chilton
  • Aditya K
  • Alex Chohlas-Wood
  • Austin Peters

The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning—which distinguish between its many forms—correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables.

v2026.09.13