arXiv subjects

Jonathan Zittrain

Publications and source records attributed to Jonathan Zittrain.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Institutional Books - Visual Elements: An open-source pipeline for extracting, classifying, deduplicating, and captioning visual elements from digital book collections

Historical book collections contain rich visual elements - such as illustrations, photographs, engravings, and decorative art - that are frequently under-explored in large-scale digitization projects. While Optical Character Recognition (OCR) has standardized the extraction of textual content, these visual components offer a layer of nuance and context that remains largely untapped by automated text extraction workflows. This technical report introduces Institutional Books - Visual Elements, an open-source end-to-end pipeline for detecting, classifying, deduplicating, and captioning visual elements from historical book collections. Alongside this pipeline, we release an initial dataset of 22.6 million visual elements extracted from the 983,004 scanned volumes that comprise the Institutional Books: Harvard Library dataset. This work contributes to ongoing, community-wide efforts to enable new use cases for digitized library collections through computational access, from artificial intelligence model training to digital humanities research.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Institutional Newspapers Pipeline: Deriving billions of high quality tokens from historical newspapers

Historical newspapers are an abundant record of public life, but their dense, irregular and sometimes noisy layouts make computational access to these materials both challenging and limited. We present the Institutional Newspapers Pipeline, a modular system we jointly designed with Boston Public Library to extract high-quality, structured datasets from historical newspaper scans. It was architected so that each step remains interpretable and customizable, and so that the pipeline as a whole remains computationally frugal enough to run on workstation-level hardware. The pipeline runs each scan through a multi-step process: it segments scans into individual type-agnostic crops and performs OCR on each resulting segment before then performing text analysis, type classification, reading order detection, named entities recognition, subject classification, language detection, and pre-computed embeddings generation on every crop. We ran this pipeline against a portion of Boston Public Library's holdings and released the results as an open dataset. The optical character recognition (OCR) output represents 16.3 billion o200k_base tokens across 83.1 million individual crops, extracted from 1,473,635 public domain newspaper scans published between 1795 and 1930. This report describes our methods for each processing step, the small models we trained, as well as the evaluation results and dataset-scale measurements we collected in the process. It accompanies the release of the pipeline, models, and dataset. We position this work as a substantial step towards unlocking high-quality data from tens of millions of newspaper scans.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Institutional Books - Enriched Text: A customizable multilingual open-source pipeline for denoising, deduplicating, and annotating OCR text at scale

Released in 2025, Institutional Books: Harvard Library (IB-HL) is a collection of 983,004 volumes (242B o200k_base tokens), originally digitized through Harvard Library's participation in the Google Books Library project. As researchers and developers have begun to use IB-HL, a tension has emerged between standard large-scale preprocessing practices and the goals of careful information stewardship. Many existing pipelines optimize for web text: as a result, they tend to aggressively filter, deduplicate, restrict by language, and sometimes discard meaningful metadata. Meanwhile, researchers seeking to use IB-HL duplicate effort while performing similar processing and analysis. We describe an approach that we call Enriched Text. Instead of producing a single 'complete' stream of tokens, we normalize the text while preserving metadata through annotations. We separate endmatter, detect per-paragraph language, identify clusters of duplicate paragraphs, and compute per-paragraph bits-per-byte scores. We provide this information through HTML-like annotations layered on top of the text. By parsing these annotations, users can tailor the output to their own needs instead of accepting a global editorial decision on content. The pipeline applies to all $\approx$250 languages in the collection. This report describes this project's goals, implementation, and design rationale. The release includes IB-HL-ET (an enriched-text version of IB-HL containing 217B o200k_base tokens across 983,003 volumes, organized into 1.39B annotated subtopic paragraphs) and the pipeline that produced it. These serve to make the collection easier for machines to parse and for humans to study.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Legal Alignment for Safe and Ethical AI

Alignment of artificial intelligence (AI) encompasses the normative problem of specifying how AI systems should act and the technical problem of ensuring AI systems comply with those specifications. To date, AI alignment has generally overlooked an important source of knowledge and practice for grappling with these problems: law. In this paper, we survey the emerging field of legal alignment that aims to fill this gap and systematize research that studies how legal rules, principles, and methods can be leveraged to address problems of alignment and inform the design of AI systems that operate safely and ethically. Our survey provides a taxonomy of the three core research pathways of legal alignment and explores how each can be operationalized in practice: (1) designing AI systems to comply with the content of legal rules developed through legitimate institutions and processes, (2) adapting methods from legal interpretation to guide how AI systems reason and make decisions, and (3) harnessing legal concepts as a structural blueprint for confronting challenges of reliability, trust, and cooperation in AI systems. These research pathways present new conceptual, empirical, and institutional questions, which include examining the specific set of laws that particular AI systems should follow, creating evaluations to assess their legal compliance in real-world settings, and developing governance frameworks to support the implementation of legal alignment in practice. Tackling these questions requires expertise across law, computer science, and other disciplines, offering these communities the opportunity to collaborate in designing AI for the better.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

GRIN Transfer: A production-ready tool for libraries to retrieve digital copies from Google Books

Publicly launched in 2004, the Google Books project has scanned tens of millions of items in partnership with libraries around the world. As part of this project, Google created the Google Return Interface (GRIN). Through this platform, libraries can access their scanned collections, the associated metadata, and the ongoing OCR and metadata improvements that become available as Google reprocesses these collections using new technologies. When downloading the Harvard Library Google Books collection from GRIN to develop the Institutional Books dataset, we encountered several challenges related to rate-limiting and atomized metadata within the GRIN platform. To overcome these challenges and help other libraries make more robust use of their Google Books collections, this technical report introduces the initial release of GRIN Transfer. This open-source and production-ready Python pipeline allows partner libraries to efficiently retrieve their Google Books collections from GRIN. This report also introduces an updated version of our Institutional Books 1.0 pipeline, initially used to analyze, augment, and assemble the Institutional Books 1.0 dataset. We have revised this pipeline for compatibility with the output format of GRIN Transfer. A library could pair these two tools to create an end-to-end processing pipeline for their Google Books collection to retrieve, structure, and enhance data available from GRIN. This report gives an overview of how GRIN Transfer was designed to optimize for reliability and usability in different environments, as well as guidance on configuration for various use cases.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

The California Report on Frontier AI Policy

The innovations emerging at the frontier of artificial intelligence (AI) are poised to create historic opportunities for humanity but also raise complex policy challenges. Continued progress in frontier AI carries the potential for profound advances in scientific discovery, economic productivity, and broader social well-being. As the epicenter of global AI innovation, California has a unique opportunity to continue supporting developments in frontier AI while addressing substantial risks that could have far reaching consequences for the state and beyond. This report leverages broad evidence, including empirical research, historical analysis, and modeling and simulations, to provide a framework for policymaking on the frontier of AI development. Building on this multidisciplinary approach, this report derives policy principles that can inform how California approaches the use, assessment, and governance of frontier AI: principles rooted in an ethos of trust but verify. This approach takes into account the importance of innovation while establishing appropriate strategies to reduce material risks.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Institutional Books 1.0: A 242B token dataset from Harvard Library's collections, refined for accuracy and usability

Large language models (LLMs) use data to learn about the world in order to produce meaningful correlations and predictions. As such, the nature, scale, quality, and diversity of the datasets used to train these models, or to support their work at inference time, have a direct impact on their quality. The rapid development and adoption of LLMs of varying quality has brought into focus the scarcity of publicly available, high-quality training data and revealed an urgent need to ground the stewardship of these datasets in sustainable practices with clear provenance chains. To that end, this technical report introduces Institutional Books 1.0, a large collection of public domain books originally digitized through Harvard Library's participation in the Google Books project, beginning in 2006. Working with Harvard Library, we extracted, analyzed, and processed these volumes into an extensively-documented dataset of historic texts. This analysis covers the entirety of Harvard Library's collection scanned as part of that project, originally spanning 1,075,899 volumes written in over 250 different languages for a total of approximately 250 billion tokens. As part of this initial release, the OCR-extracted text (original and post-processed) as well as the metadata (bibliographic, source, and generated) of the 983,004 volumes, or 242B tokens, identified as being in the public domain have been made available. This report describes this project's goals and methods as well as the results of the analyses we performed, all in service of making this historical collection more accessible and easier for humans and machines alike to filter, read and use.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2018

Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment

Actuarial risk assessments might be unduly perceived as a neutral way to counteract implicit bias and increase the fairness of decisions made at almost every juncture of the criminal justice system, from pretrial release to sentencing, parole and probation. In recent times these assessments have come under increased scrutiny, as critics claim that the statistical techniques underlying them might reproduce existing patterns of discrimination and historical biases that are reflected in the data. Much of this debate is centered around competing notions of fairness and predictive accuracy, resting on the contested use of variables that act as "proxies" for characteristics legally protected against discrimination, such as race and gender. We argue that a core ethical debate surrounding the use of regression in risk assessments is not simply one of bias or accuracy. Rather, it's one of purpose. If machine learning is operationalized merely in the service of predicting individual future crime, then it becomes difficult to break cycles of criminalization that are driven by the iatrogenic effects of the criminal justice system itself. We posit that machine learning should not be used for prediction, but rather to surface covariates that are fed into a causal model for understanding the social, structural and psychological drivers of crime. We propose an alternative application of machine learning and causal inference away from predicting risk scores to risk mitigation.

cs.LG↗