Create README.md
Browse files
README.md
ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
+
---
|
2 |
+
datasets:
|
3 |
+
- lighteval/LegalSupport
|
4 |
+
---
|
5 |
+
## Info
|
6 |
+
|
7 |
+
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.
|
8 |
+
|
9 |
+
## Example Output
|
10 |
+
|
11 |
+
### INSTRUCTION
|
12 |
+
Below are two legal citations. Please generate a summary judgment.
|
13 |
+
|
14 |
+
### Citation A:
|
15 |
+
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).
|
16 |
+
|
17 |
+
### Citation B:
|
18 |
+
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).
|
19 |
+
|
20 |
+
### Judgment:
|
21 |
+
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.)
|