Mock trial has long served as an important platform for legal professional training and education. It not only helps students learn about realistic trial procedures, but also provides practical value for case analysis and judgment prediction. Traditional mock trials are difficult to access by the public because they rely on professional tutors and human participants. Fortunately, the rise of large language models (LLMs) provides new opportunities for creating more accessible and scalable court simulations. While promising, existing research mainly focuses on agent construction while ignoring the systematic design and evaluation of court simulations, which are actually more important for the credibility and usage of court simulation in practice. To this end, we present the first court simulation framework -- SimCourt -- based on the real-world procedure structure of Chinese courts. Our framework replicates all 5 core stages of a Chinese trial and incorporates 5 courtroom roles, faithfully following the procedural definitions in China. To simulate trial participants with different roles, we propose and craft legal agents equipped with memory, planning, and reflection abilities. Experiment on legal judgment prediction show that our framework can generate simulated trials that better guide the system to predict the imprisonment, probation, and fine of each case. Further annotations by human experts show that agents' responses under our simulation framework even outperformed judges and lawyers from the real trials in many scenarios. These further demonstrate the potential of LLM-based court simulation.

Unlike existing systems that assume static or single-view settings, SEER-V AR dynamically separates cabin and road scenes via depth-guided vision-language grounding. Two SLAM branches track egocentric motion in each context, while a GPT -based module generates context-aware overlays such as dashboard cues and hazard alerts. To support evaluation, we introduce EgoSLAM-Drive, a real-world dataset featuring synchronized egocentric views, 6DoF ground-truth poses, and AR annotations across diverse driving scenarios. Experiments demonstrate that SEER-V AR achieves robust spatial alignment and perceptually coherent AR rendering across varied environments. As one of the first to explore LLM-based AR recommendation in egocentric driving, we address the lack of comparable systems through structured prompting and detailed user studies. Results show that SEER-V AR enhances perceived scene understanding, overlay relevance, and driver ease, providing an effective foundation for future research in this direction. Code and dataset will be made open source.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a powerful technique for enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs) with external, up-to-date knowledge. Graph RAG has emerged as an advanced paradigm that leverages graph-based knowledge structures to provide more coherent and contextually rich answers. However, the move from plain document retrieval to structured graph traversal introduces new, under-explored privacy risks. This paper investigates the data extraction vulnerabilities of the Graph RAG systems. We design and execute tailored data extraction attacks to probe their susceptibility to leaking both raw text and structured data, such as entities and their relationships. Our findings reveal a critical trade-off: while Graph RAG systems may reduce raw text leakage, they are significantly more vulnerable to the extraction of structured entity and relationship information. We also explore potential defense mechanisms to mitigate these novel attack surfaces. This work provides a foundational analysis of the unique privacy challenges in Graph RAG and offers insights for building more secure systems.

The concepts of ``human-centered AI'' and ``value-based decision'' have gained significant attention in both research and industry. However, many critical aspects remain underexplored and require further investigation. In particular, there is a need to understand how systems incorporate human values, how humans can identify these values within systems, and how to minimize the risks of harm or unintended consequences. In this paper, we highlight the need to rethink how we frame value alignment and assert that value alignment should move beyond static and singular conceptions of values. We argue that AI systems should implement long-term reasoning and remain adaptable to evolving values. Furthermore, value alignment requires more theories to address the full spectrum of human values. Since values often vary among individuals or groups, multi-agent systems provide the right framework for navigating pluralism, conflict, and inter-agent reasoning about values. We identify the challenges associated with value alignment and indicate directions for advancing value alignment research. In addition, we broadly discuss diverse perspectives of value alignment, from design methodologies to practical applications.

We address the problem of data scarcity in harmful text classification for guardrailing applications and introduce GRAID (Geometric and Reflective AI-Driven Data Augmentation), a novel pipeline that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) for dataset augmentation. GRAID consists of two stages: (i) generation of geometrically controlled examples using a constrained LLM, and (ii) augmentation through a multi-agentic reflective process that promotes stylistic diversity and uncovers edge cases. This combination enables both reliable coverage of the input space and nuanced exploration of harmful content. Using two benchmark data sets, we demonstrate that augmenting a harmful text classification dataset with GRAID leads to significant improvements in downstream guardrail model performance.

AI Alignment, primarily in the form of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), has been a cornerstone of the post-training phase in developing Large Language Models (LLMs). It has also been a popular research topic across various disciplines beyond Computer Science, including Philosophy and Law, among others, highlighting the socio-technical challenges involved. Nonetheless, except for the computational techniques related to alignment, there has been limited focus on the broader picture: the scope of these processes, which primarily rely on the selected objectives (values), and the data collected and used to imprint such objectives into the models. This work aims to reveal how alignment is understood and applied in practice from a value-setting and data-centric perspective. For this purpose, we investigate and survey (`audit') publicly available documentation released by 6 LLM development initiatives by 5 leading organizations shaping this technology, focusing on proprietary (OpenAI's GPT, Anthropic's Claude, Google's Gemini) and open-weight (Meta's Llama, Google's Gemma, and Alibaba's Qwen) initiatives, all published in the last 3 years. The findings are documented in detail per initiative, while there is also an overall summary concerning different aspects, mainly from a value-setting and data-centric perspective. On the basis of our findings, we discuss a series of broader related concerns.

Generative AI coding assistants (ACAs) are widely adopted yet pose serious legal and compliance risks. ACAs can generate code governed by restrictive open-source licenses (e.g., GPL), potentially exposing companies to litigation or forced open-sourcing. Few developers are trained in these risks, and legal standards vary globally, especially with outsourcing. Our article introduces DevLicOps, a practical framework that helps IT leaders manage ACA-related licensing risks through governance, incident response, and informed tradeoffs. As ACA adoption grows and legal frameworks evolve, proactive license compliance is essential for responsible, risk-aware software development in the AI era.

Advanced reasoning capabilities in Large Language Models (LLMs) have caused higher hallucination prevalence; yet most mitigation work focuses on after-the-fact filtering rather than shaping the queries that trigger them. We introduce QueryBandits, a bandit framework that designs rewrite strategies to maximize a reward model, that encapsulates hallucination propensity based upon the sensitivities of 17 linguistic features of the input query-and therefore, proactively steer LLMs away from generating hallucinations. Across 13 diverse QA benchmarks and 1,050 lexically perturbed queries per dataset, our top contextual QueryBandit (Thompson Sampling) achieves an 87.5% win rate over a no-rewrite baseline and also outperforms zero-shot static prompting ("paraphrase" or "expand") by 42.6% and 60.3% respectively. Therefore, we empirically substantiate the effectiveness of QueryBandits in mitigating hallucination via the intervention that takes the form of a query rewrite. Interestingly, certain static prompting strategies, which constitute a considerable number of current query rewriting literature, have a higher cumulative regret than the no-rewrite baseline, signifying that static rewrites can worsen hallucination. Moreover, we discover that the converged per-arm regression feature weight vectors substantiate that there is no single rewrite strategy optimal for all queries. In this context, guided rewriting via exploiting semantic features with QueryBandits can induce significant shifts in output behavior through forward-pass mechanisms, bypassing the need for retraining or gradient-based adaptation.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in hiring, with large language models (LLMs) having the potential to influence or even make hiring decisions. However, this raises pressing concerns about bias, fairness, and trust, particularly across diverse cultural contexts. Despite their growing role, few studies have systematically examined the potential biases in AI-driven hiring evaluation across cultures. In this study, we conduct a systematic analysis of how LLMs assess job interviews across cultural and identity dimensions. Using two datasets of interview transcripts, 100 from UK and 100 from Indian job seekers, we first examine cross-cultural differences in LLM-generated scores for hirability and related traits. Indian transcripts receive consistently lower scores than UK transcripts, even when they were anonymized, with disparities linked to linguistic features such as sentence complexity and lexical diversity. We then perform controlled identity substitutions (varying names by gender, caste, and region) within the Indian dataset to test for name-based bias. These substitutions do not yield statistically significant effects, indicating that names alone, when isolated from other contextual signals, may not influence LLM evaluations. Our findings underscore the importance of evaluating both linguistic and social dimensions in LLM-driven evaluations and highlight the need for culturally sensitive design and accountability in AI-assisted hiring.

We analyzed nearly 460,000 AI model cards from Hugging Face to examine how developers report risks. From these, we extracted around 3,000 unique risk mentions and built the \emph{AI Model Risk Catalog}. We compared these with risks identified by researchers in the MIT Risk Repository and with real-world incidents from the AI Incident Database. Developers focused on technical issues like bias and safety, while researchers emphasized broader social impacts. Both groups paid little attention to fraud and manipulation, which are common harms arising from how people interact with AI. Our findings show the need for clearer, structured risk reporting that helps developers think about human-interaction and systemic risks early in the design process. The catalog and paper appendix are available at: https://social-dynamics.net/ai-risks/catalog.