arXiv subjects

Dominik Stammbach

Publications and source records attributed to Dominik Stammbach.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Climate-ModernBERT: Revisiting Corpus Composition for Domain-Adaptive Continued Pretraining

Natural Language Processing (NLP) in the climate domain requires models to process heterogeneous text sources, including scientific literature, policy disclosures, and synthetic reports. However, how to effectively combine diverse domain corpora during continued pretraining (CPT) remains underexplored. We introduce Climate-ModernBERT, a family of climate-adapted encoder models obtained through continued pretraining of ModernBERT-Base on three climate corpora: academic climate text, climate-filtered web data, and synthetic climate documents. We systematically compare joint continued pretraining on corpus mixtures with parameter-space merging of independently specialized checkpoints. Across nine climate NLP benchmarks, our best model achieves 76.3 average F_1, improving significantly over a vanilla ModernBERT baseline by 2.8 points. Within the climate NLP setting, the results show that academic climate corpora provide the strongest adaptation signal among the evaluated sources, while parameter-space merging improves over joint multi-source training and better preserves complementary information from heterogeneous climate corpora. We release all Climate-ModernBERT variants and training checkpoints to support future research in climate NLP and domain-adaptive pretraining.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Legal Domain Adaptation of Modern BERT Models

We investigate domain adaptation of modern BERT models in the legal domain. We further pre-train ModernBERT on all US court opinions using the masked language modeling objective. Although ModernBERT has been trained on roughly 500x more data than original BERT, we still find that this model benefits from further pre-training and domain adaptation in the legal domain: we report significant improvements compared to vanilla ModernBERT on all datasets connected to US court opinions. We find gains similar to those reported in early work on domain adaptation of BERT-like models. However, from scratch pre-training does not match the performance of further pre-training an existing ModernBERT checkpoint in our experiments. The resulting models are capable of processing sequences up to 8,192 tokens, and can be used to compute meaningful embeddings of legal passages, or could quickly rerank hundreds of legal passages for a given search query. We release all model checkpoints publicly.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Who Checks the Citations? Benchmarking Legal Hallucination Detection

Attorneys, judges, and pro se filers increasingly use AI to draft legal documents, yet these tools frequently fabricate citations. Despite predictions that newer models would hallucinate less or that court sanctions would deter negligent filers, we found over 1,000 filings containing fabricated citations---with this number growing year-over-year. This study evaluates whether AI-based systems can mitigate these errors by automatically detecting hallucinations. We propose a taxonomy of legal citation hallucinations grounded in actual court filings and introduce a dataset of 1,300 brief excerpts containing injected errors. Benchmarking five models in agentic and non-agentic settings as well as Claude Code reveals that while the latest iterations perform better---GPT-5 achieves 84.4% recall and a 55.0% F1 score in an agentic framework---all models struggle with subtle error categories. Agentic verification remains resource-intensive, with GPT-5 averaging 15.3 steps per excerpt. Furthermore, restricted information access limits the efficacy of even the best agents. This gap creates policy concerns, as it disadvantages both AI systems and litigants who lack subscriptions to commercial legal databases. Together, our dataset, tools, and policy recommendations provide a foundation for building and auditing reliable legal citation checking tools.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

AI-Assisted Moot Courts: Simulating Justice-Specific Questioning in Oral Arguments

In oral arguments, judges probe attorneys with questions about the factual record, legal claims, and the strength of their arguments. To prepare for this questioning, both law schools and practicing attorneys rely on moot courts: practice simulations of appellate hearings. Leveraging a dataset of U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts, we examine whether AI models can effectively simulate justice-specific questioning for moot court-style training. Evaluating oral argument simulation is challenging because there is no single correct question for any given turn. Instead, effective questioning should reflect a combination of desirable qualities, such as anticipating substantive legal issues, detecting logical weaknesses, and maintaining an appropriately adversarial tone. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that assesses both the realism and pedagogical usefulness of simulated questions using complementary proxy metrics. We construct and evaluate both prompt-based and agentic oral argument simulators. We find that simulated questions are often perceived as realistic by human annotators and achieve high recall of ground truth substantive legal issues. However, models still face substantial shortcomings, including low diversity in question types and sycophancy. Importantly, these shortcomings would remain undetected under naive evaluation approaches.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Legal Retrieval for Public Defenders

AI tools are suggested as solutions to assist public agencies with heavy workloads. In public defense -- where a constitutional right to counsel meets the complexities of law, overwhelming caseloads, and constrained resources -- practitioners face especially taxing conditions. Yet, there is little evidence of how AI could meaningfully support defenders' day-to-day work. In partnership with the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, we develop the NJ BriefBank, a retrieval tool which surfaces relevant appellate briefs to streamline legal research and writing. We show that existing retrieval benchmarks fail to transfer to real public defense research, however adding domain knowledge improves retrieval quality. This includes query expansion with legal reasoning, domain-specific data and curated synthetic examples. To facilitate further research, we release a taxonomy of realistic defender search queries and a manually annotated evaluation dataset for public defense retrieval. This benchmark is highly correlated with a proprietary retrieval dataset annotated by experienced public defenders. Our work improves on the status quo of realistic legal retrieval benchmarking and illustrates one approach to applying AI in a real-world public interest setting.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

How Can AI Augment Access to Justice? Public Defenders' Perspectives on AI Adoption

Public defenders are asked to do more with less: representing clients deserving of adequate counsel while facing overwhelming caseloads and scarce resources. Although artificial intelligence (AI) is often promoted as a means of relieving administrative and cognitive burdens, legal AI research rarely engages with the everyday realities of public defense work. Drawing on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 17 public defense professionals across the United States, we identify work-intensive tasks most amenable to AI assistance and the ethical constraints involved in legal representation. We develop a comprehensive task-level map of public defense work, dividing it into five pillars to clarify where AI can and cannot contribute: evidence investigation, legal research & writing, client communication & support, courtroom representation, and defense strategies. Interviewees consistently identified evidence investigation, such as reviewing large volumes of digital records, as the area with the greatest potential for AI support. AI was viewed as having more limited roles in legal research and client communication, and as least compatible with courtroom representation and defense strategy. We find that AI adoption is constrained by costs, restrictive office norms, confidentiality risks, and unsatisfactory tool quality. Our interviewees emphasize safeguards for responsible use, including mandatory human verification, limits on over-reliance, and the preservation of relational aspects of lawyering. Building on these findings, we outline a research agenda that promotes equitable access to justice by prioritizing open science, building domain-specific datasets and evaluation, and incorporating frontline practitioners' perspectives into system development.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

A Multimodal Benchmark for Framing of Oil & Gas Advertising and Potential Greenwashing Detection

Companies spend large amounts of money on public relations campaigns to project a positive brand image. However, sometimes there is a mismatch between what they say and what they do. Oil & gas companies, for example, are accused of "greenwashing" with imagery of climate-friendly initiatives. Understanding the framing, and changes in framing, at scale can help better understand the goals and nature of public relations campaigns. To address this, we introduce a benchmark dataset of expert-annotated video ads obtained from Facebook and YouTube. The dataset provides annotations for 13 framing types for more than 50 companies or advocacy groups across 20 countries. Our dataset is especially designed for the evaluation of vision-language models (VLMs), distinguishing it from past text-only framing datasets. Baseline experiments show some promising results, while leaving room for improvement for future work: GPT-4.1 can detect environmental messages with 79% F1 score, while our best model only achieves 46% F1 score on identifying framing around green innovation. We also identify challenges that VLMs must address, such as implicit framing, handling videos of various lengths, or implicit cultural backgrounds. Our dataset contributes to research in multimodal analysis of strategic communication in the energy sector.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

What Is The Political Content in LLMs' Pre- and Post-Training Data?

Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate politically biased text. Yet, it remains unclear how such biases arise, making it difficult to design effective mitigation strategies. We hypothesize that these biases are rooted in the composition of training data. Taking a data-centric perspective, we formulate research questions on (1) political leaning present in data, (2) data imbalance, (3) cross-dataset similarity, and (4) data-model alignment. We then examine how exposure to political content relates to models' stances on policy issues. We analyze the political content of pre- and post-training datasets of open-source LLMs, combining large-scale sampling, political-leaning classification, and stance detection. We find that training data is systematically skewed toward left-leaning content, with pre-training corpora containing substantially more politically engaged material than post-training data. We further observe a strong correlation between political stances in training data and model behavior, and show that pre-training datasets exhibit similar political distributions despite different curation strategies. In addition, we find that political biases are already present in base models and persist across post-training stages. These findings highlight the central role of data composition in shaping model behavior and motivate the need for greater data transparency.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

NLP for Social Good: A Survey and Outlook of Challenges, Opportunities, and Responsible Deployment

Natural language processing (NLP) now shapes many aspects of our world, yet its potential for positive social impact is underexplored. This paper surveys work in ``NLP for Social Good" (NLP4SG) across nine domains relevant to global development and risk agendas, summarizing principal tasks and challenges. We analyze ACL Anthology trends, finding that inclusion and AI harms attract the most research, while domains such as poverty, peacebuilding, and environmental protection remain underexplored. Guided by our review, we outline opportunities for responsible and equitable NLP and conclude with a call for cross-disciplinary partnerships and human-centered approaches to ensure that future NLP technologies advance the public good.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Aligning Large Language Models with Diverse Political Viewpoints

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

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Translating Legalese: Enhancing Public Understanding of Court Opinions with Legal Summarizers

Judicial opinions are written to be persuasive and could build 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. Compared to existing expert-written summaries, these AI-generated simple summaries are more accessible to the public and more easily understood by non-experts. We show in a survey experiment that the AI summaries help respondents understand the key features of a ruling, and have higher perceived quality, especially for respondents with less formal education.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Automated Fact-Checking of Climate Change Claims with Large Language Models

This paper presents Climinator, a novel AI-based tool designed to automate the fact-checking of climate change claims. Utilizing an array of Large Language Models (LLMs) informed by authoritative sources like the IPCC reports and peer-reviewed scientific literature, Climinator employs an innovative Mediator-Advocate framework. This design allows Climinator to effectively synthesize varying scientific perspectives, leading to robust, evidence-based evaluations. Our model demonstrates remarkable accuracy when testing claims collected from Climate Feedback and Skeptical Science. Notably, when integrating an advocate with a climate science denial perspective in our framework, Climinator's iterative debate process reliably converges towards scientific consensus, underscoring its adeptness at reconciling diverse viewpoints into science-based, factual conclusions. While our research is subject to certain limitations and necessitates careful interpretation, our approach holds significant potential. We hope to stimulate further research and encourage exploring its applicability in other contexts, including political fact-checking and legal domains.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Paradigm Shift in Sustainability Disclosure Analysis: Empowering Stakeholders with CHATREPORT, a Language Model-Based Tool

This paper introduces a novel approach to enhance Large Language Models (LLMs) with expert knowledge to automate the analysis of corporate sustainability reports by benchmarking them against the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations. Corporate sustainability reports are crucial in assessing organizations' environmental and social risks and impacts. However, analyzing these reports' vast amounts of information makes human analysis often too costly. As a result, only a few entities worldwide have the resources to analyze these reports, which could lead to a lack of transparency. While AI-powered tools can automatically analyze the data, they are prone to inaccuracies as they lack domain-specific expertise. This paper introduces a novel approach to enhance LLMs with expert knowledge to automate the analysis of corporate sustainability reports. We christen our tool CHATREPORT, and apply it in a first use case to assess corporate climate risk disclosures following the TCFD recommendations. CHATREPORT results from collaborating with experts in climate science, finance, economic policy, and computer science, demonstrating how domain experts can be involved in developing AI tools. We make our prompt templates, generated data, and scores available to the public to encourage transparency.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Revisiting Automated Topic Model Evaluation with Large Language Models

Topic models are used to make sense of large text collections. However, automatically evaluating topic model output and determining the optimal number of topics both have been longstanding challenges, with no effective automated solutions to date. This paper proposes using large language models to evaluate such output. We find that large language models appropriately assess the resulting topics, correlating more strongly with human judgments than existing automated metrics. We then investigate whether we can use large language models to automatically determine the optimal number of topics. We automatically assign labels to documents and choosing configurations with the most pure labels returns reasonable values for the optimal number of topics.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

CHATREPORT: Democratizing Sustainability Disclosure Analysis through LLM-based Tools

In the face of climate change, are companies really taking substantial steps toward more sustainable operations? A comprehensive answer lies in the dense, information-rich landscape of corporate sustainability reports. However, the sheer volume and complexity of these reports make human analysis very costly. Therefore, only a few entities worldwide have the resources to analyze these reports at scale, which leads to a lack of transparency in sustainability reporting. Empowering stakeholders with LLM-based automatic analysis tools can be a promising way to democratize sustainability report analysis. However, developing such tools is challenging due to (1) the hallucination of LLMs and (2) the inefficiency of bringing domain experts into the AI development loop. In this paper, we ChatReport, a novel LLM-based system to automate the analysis of corporate sustainability reports, addressing existing challenges by (1) making the answers traceable to reduce the harm of hallucination and (2) actively involving domain experts in the development loop. We make our methodology, annotated datasets, and generated analyses of 1015 reports publicly available.

cs.CL↗