Create README.md

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+datasets:
+- lighteval/LegalSupport
+---
+## Info
+
+BLOOMZ-3b fine-tuned on legal language. *Experimental purposes only!* This fine-tuning makes no attempt to understand the true nature of the dataset. It simply attempts to assess the performance of basic prompt engineering BLOOMZ-3b on legal language.
+
+## Example Output
+
+### INSTRUCTION
+Below are two legal citations. Please generate a summary judgment.
+
+### Citation A:
+United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931, 991 (9th Cir.2007) (approving of district court not allowing witnesses to offer opinions on what jury’s verdict should be); United States v. Caro, 461 F.Supp.2d. 459, 465 (W.D.Va.2006) (“[A]n express plea for mercy to the jury from a defendant’s witness is not mitigating evidence that could aid the jury in their decision making.”); see also Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 892 (9th Cir.2007) (noting there are no federal cases requiring the admission of execution impact testimony); Jackson v. Dretke, 450 F.3d 614, 617-18 (5th Cir.2006); but see Jackson, 450 F.3d at 620 (Dennis, J., dissenting).
+
+### Citation B:
+United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931, 991 (9th Cir.2007) (approving of district court not allowing witnesses to offer opinions on what jury’s verdict should be); United States v. Caro, 461 F.Supp.2d. 459, 465 (W.D.Va.2006) (“[A]n express plea for mercy to the jury from a defendant’s witness is not mitigating evidence that could aid the jury in their decision making.”); see also Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 892 (9th Cir.2007) (noting there are no federal cases requiring the admission of execution impact testimony); Jackson v. Dretke, 450 F.3d 614, 617-18 (5th Cir.2006); but see Jackson, 450 F.3d at 620 (Dennis, J., dissenting).
+
+### Judgment:
+The district court's decision to allow the testimony of the defendant's execution impact witness is not mitigating evidence. (Model repeats for as many tokens as possible.)