With the growing prevalence of large language models (LLMs), the safety of LLMs has raised significant concerns. However, there is still a lack of definitive standards for evaluating their safety due to the subjective nature of current safety benchmarks. To address this gap, we conducted the first exploration of LLMs' safety evaluation from a legal perspective by proposing the SafeLawBench benchmark. SafeLawBench categorizes safety risks into three levels based on legal standards, providing a systematic and comprehensive framework for evaluation. It comprises 24,860 multi-choice questions and 1,106 open-domain question-answering (QA) tasks. Our evaluation included 2 closed-source LLMs and 18 open-source LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, highlighting the safety features of each model. We also evaluated the LLMs' safety-related reasoning stability and refusal behavior. Additionally, we found that a majority voting mechanism can enhance model performance. Notably, even leading SOTA models like Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o have not exceeded 80.5% accuracy in multi-choice tasks on SafeLawBench, while the average accuracy of 20 LLMs remains at 68.8\%. We urge the community to prioritize research on the safety of LLMs.

After a disruptive event or shock, such as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) federal layoffs of 2025, expert judgments are colored by knowledge of the outcome. This can make it difficult or impossible to reconstruct the pre-event perceptions needed to study the factors associated with the event. This position paper argues that large language models (LLMs), trained on vast amounts of digital media data, can be a viable substitute for expert political surveys when a shock disrupts traditional measurement. We analyze the DOGE layoffs as a specific case study for this position. We use pairwise comparison prompts with LLMs and derive ideology scores for federal executive agencies. These scores replicate pre-layoff expert measures and predict which agencies were targeted by DOGE. We also use this same approach and find that the perceptions of certain federal agencies as knowledge institutions predict which agencies were targeted by DOGE, even when controlling for ideology. This case study demonstrates that using LLMs allows us to rapidly and easily test the associated factors hypothesized behind the shock. More broadly, our case study of this recent event exemplifies how LLMs offer insights into the correlational factors of the shock when traditional measurement techniques fail. We conclude by proposing a two-part criterion for when researchers can turn to LLMs as a substitute for expert political surveys.

The application scope of Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to expand, leading to increasing interest in personalized LLMs that align with human values. However, aligning these models with individual values raises significant safety concerns, as certain values may correlate with harmful information. In this paper, we identify specific safety risks associated with value-aligned LLMs and investigate the psychological principles behind these challenges. Our findings reveal two key insights. (1) Value-aligned LLMs are more prone to harmful behavior compared to non-fine-tuned models and exhibit slightly higher risks in traditional safety evaluations than other fine-tuned models. (2) These safety issues arise because value-aligned LLMs genuinely generate text according to the aligned values, which can amplify harmful outcomes. Using a dataset with detailed safety categories, we find significant correlations between value alignment and safety risks, supported by psychological hypotheses. This study offers insights into the "black box" of value alignment and proposes in-context alignment methods to enhance the safety of value-aligned LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used across sectors, yet their alignment with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is not well understood. This study evaluates eight leading LLMs on their ability to refuse prompts that explicitly violate these legal frameworks, focusing also on helpfulness - how clearly and constructively refusals are communicated. While most models rejected unlawful requests, the clarity and consistency of their responses varied. By revealing the model's rationale and referencing relevant legal or safety principles, explanatory refusals clarify the system's boundaries, reduce ambiguity, and help prevent misuse. A standardised system-level safety prompt significantly improved the quality of the explanations expressed within refusals in most models, highlighting the effectiveness of lightweight interventions. However, more complex prompts involving technical language or requests for code revealed ongoing vulnerabilities. These findings contribute to the development of safer, more transparent AI systems and propose a benchmark to evaluate the compliance of LLM with IHL.

Extreme events, such as market crashes, natural disasters, and pandemics, are rare but catastrophic, often triggering cascading failures across interconnected systems. Accurate prediction and early warning can help minimize losses and improve preparedness. While data-driven methods offer powerful capabilities for extreme event modeling, they require abundant training data, yet extreme event data is inherently scarce, creating a fundamental challenge. Synthetic data generation has emerged as a powerful solution. However, existing surveys focus on general data with privacy preservation emphasis, rather than extreme events' unique performance requirements. This survey provides the first overview of synthetic data generation for extreme events. We systematically review generative modeling techniques and large language models, particularly those enhanced by statistical theory as well as specialized training and sampling mechanisms to capture heavy-tailed distributions. We summarize benchmark datasets and introduce a tailored evaluation framework covering statistical, dependence, visual, and task-oriented metrics. A central contribution is our in-depth analysis of each metric's applicability in extremeness and domain-specific adaptations, providing actionable guidance for model evaluation in extreme settings. We categorize key application domains and identify underexplored areas like behavioral finance, wildfires, earthquakes, windstorms, and infectious outbreaks. Finally, we outline open challenges, providing a structured foundation for advancing synthetic rare-event research.

Predictive coding networks (PCNs) constitute a biologically inspired framework for understanding hierarchical computation in the brain, and offer an alternative to traditional feedforward neural networks in ML. This note serves as a quick, onboarding introduction to PCNs for machine learning practitioners. We cover the foundational network architecture, inference and learning update rules, and algorithmic implementation. A concrete image-classification task (CIFAR-10) is provided as a benchmark-smashing application, together with an accompanying Python notebook containing the PyTorch implementation.

As machine learning systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as criminal justice, finance, and healthcare, the demand for interpretable and trustworthy models has intensified. Despite the proliferation of local explanation techniques, including SHAP, LIME, and counterfactual methods, there exists no standardized, reproducible framework for their comparative evaluation, particularly in fairness-sensitive settings. We introduce ExplainBench, an open-source benchmarking suite for systematic evaluation of local model explanations across ethically consequential datasets. ExplainBench provides unified wrappers for popular explanation algorithms, integrates end-to-end pipelines for model training and explanation generation, and supports evaluation via fidelity, sparsity, and robustness metrics. The framework includes a Streamlit-based graphical interface for interactive exploration and is packaged as a Python module for seamless integration into research workflows. We demonstrate ExplainBench on datasets commonly used in fairness research, such as COMPAS, UCI Adult Income, and LendingClub, and showcase how different explanation methods behave under a shared experimental protocol. By enabling reproducible, comparative analysis of local explanations, ExplainBench advances the methodological foundations of interpretable machine learning and facilitates accountability in real-world AI systems.

Large Language Model (LLM) safeguards, which implement request refusals, have become a widely adopted mitigation strategy against misuse. At the intersection of adversarial machine learning and AI safety, safeguard red teaming has effectively identified critical vulnerabilities in state-of-the-art refusal-trained LLMs. However, in our view the many conference submissions on LLM red teaming do not, in aggregate, prioritize the right research problems. First, testing against clear product safety specifications should take a higher priority than abstract social biases or ethical principles. Second, red teaming should prioritize realistic threat models that represent the expanding risk landscape and what real attackers might do. Finally, we contend that system-level safety is a necessary step to move red teaming research forward, as AI models present new threats as well as affordances for threat mitigation (e.g., detection and banning of malicious users) once placed in a deployment context. Adopting these priorities will be necessary in order for red teaming research to adequately address the slate of new threats that rapid AI advances present today and will present in the very near future.

Although value-aligned language models (LMs) appear unbiased in explicit bias evaluations, they often exhibit stereotypes in implicit word association tasks, raising concerns about their fair usage. We investigate the mechanisms behind this discrepancy and find that alignment surprisingly amplifies implicit bias in model outputs. Specifically, we show that aligned LMs, unlike their unaligned counterparts, overlook racial concepts in early internal representations when the context is ambiguous. Not representing race likely fails to activate safety guardrails, leading to unintended biases. Inspired by this insight, we propose a new bias mitigation strategy that works by incentivizing the representation of racial concepts in the early model layers. In contrast to conventional mitigation methods of machine unlearning, our interventions find that steering the model to be more aware of racial concepts effectively mitigates implicit bias. Similar to race blindness in humans, ignoring racial nuances can inadvertently perpetuate subtle biases in LMs.

Can LLMs accurately adjust their confidence when facing opposition? Building on previous studies measuring calibration on static fact-based question-answering tasks, we evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in a dynamic, adversarial debate setting, uniquely combining two realistic factors: (a) a multi-turn format requiring models to update beliefs as new information emerges, and (b) a zero-sum structure to control for task-related uncertainty, since mutual high-confidence claims imply systematic overconfidence. We organized 60 three-round policy debates among ten state-of-the-art LLMs, with models privately rating their confidence (0-100) in winning after each round. We observed five concerning patterns: (1) Systematic overconfidence: models began debates with average initial confidence of 72.9% vs. a rational 50% baseline. (2) Confidence escalation: rather than reducing confidence as debates progressed, debaters increased their win probabilities, averaging 83% by the final round. (3) Mutual overestimation: in 61.7% of debates, both sides simultaneously claimed >=75% probability of victory, a logical impossibility. (4) Persistent self-debate bias: models debating identical copies increased confidence from 64.1% to 75.2%; even when explicitly informed their chance of winning was exactly 50%, confidence still rose (from 50.0% to 57.1%). (5) Misaligned private reasoning: models' private scratchpad thoughts sometimes differed from their public confidence ratings, raising concerns about faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning. These results suggest LLMs lack the ability to accurately self-assess or update their beliefs in dynamic, multi-turn tasks; a major concern as LLMs are now increasingly deployed without careful review in assistant and agentic roles. Code for our experiments is available at https://github.com/pradyuprasad/llms_overconfidence