Despite the importance of developing generative AI models that can effectively resist scams, current literature lacks a structured framework for evaluating their vulnerability to such threats. In this work, we address this gap by constructing a benchmark based on the FINRA taxonomy and systematically assessing Large Language Models' (LLMs') vulnerability to a variety of scam tactics. First, we incorporate 37 well-defined base scam scenarios reflecting the diverse scam categories identified by FINRA taxonomy, providing a focused evaluation of LLMs' scam detection capabilities. Second, we utilize representative proprietary (GPT-3.5, GPT-4) and open-source (Llama) models to analyze their performance in scam detection. Third, our research provides critical insights into which scam tactics are most effective against LLMs and how varying persona traits and persuasive techniques influence these vulnerabilities. We reveal distinct susceptibility patterns across different models and scenarios, underscoring the need for targeted enhancements in LLM design and deployment.

Estimating ideological positions of lawmakers has a long tradition in political science. Poole & Rosenthal (1985) proposed a "scaling procedure" to estimate ideological positions of lawmakers based on their voting behavior. Dynamic weighted nominal three-step estimation (McCarty et al. 1997), an extension of this procedure, results in the DW-Nominate scores that are widely accepted as benchmark ideological positions both on party level as well as on individual level (see, e.g., Poole et al. 2011, Lewis et al. 2022, Boche et al. 2018). Legislative votes, however, provide limited information on the latent ideological positions because voting behavior on individual level is often not documented and lawmakers rarely diverge from party-line voting due to robust party discipline (Hug 2010). Consequently, roll-call analysis for inferring the ideological positions adopted by legislators both within and across parties is of limited value (see, e.g., Lauderdale & Herzog 2016). Text-based scaling models are a promising alternative method to discern ideological stances based on political discussions.

Consistency of case bases is a way to avoid the problem of retrieving conflicting constraining precedents for new cases to be decided. However, in legal practice the consistency requirements for case bases may not be satisfied. As pointed out in (Broughton 2019), a model of precedential constraint should take into account the hierarchical structure of the specific legal system under consideration and the temporal dimension of cases. This article continues the research initiated in (Liu et al. 2022; Di Florio et al. 2023), which established a connection between Boolean classifiers and legal case-based reasoning. On this basis, we enrich the classifier models with an organisational structure that takes into account both the hierarchy of courts and which courts issue decisions that are binding/constraining on subsequent cases. We focus on common law systems. We also introduce a temporal relation between cases. Within this enriched framework, we can formalise the notions of overruled cases and cases decided per incuriam: such cases are not to be considered binding on later cases. Finally, we show under which condition principles based on the hierarchical structure and on the temporal dimension can provide an unambiguous decision-making process for new cases in the presence of conflicting binding precedents.

Driving world models have gained increasing attention due to their ability to model complex physical dynamics. However, their superb modeling capability is yet to be fully unleashed due to the limited video diversity in current driving datasets. We introduce DrivingDojo, the first dataset tailor-made for training interactive world models with complex driving dynamics. Our dataset features video clips with a complete set of driving maneuvers, diverse multi-agent interplay, and rich open-world driving knowledge, laying a stepping stone for future world model development. We further define an action instruction following (AIF) benchmark for world models and demonstrate the superiority of the proposed dataset for generating action-controlled future predictions.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, LLaMA, and Claude have prevailed in countless domains, including legal scenarios. With LLMs' rapid technological progress, the development of prompt engineering (PE) as an interface between the LLMs and real-world applications has drawn the attention of all developers. Various PE methods have been proposed to overcome real-world challenges, such as few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). However, RAG for legal judgment prediction (LJP) is still underexplored. To address this, we propose "Athena", a novel framework cultivating RAG as a core preprocess component to enhance LLMs' performance on specialized tasks. Athena constructs a knowledge base for accusations, attached with a semantic retrieval mechanism through vectorization. Our experiments show that Athena's overall performance has improved significantly, achieving state-of-the-art results on the CAIL2018 dataset. Our ablation study on the in-context window size parameter further reproduces LLMs' "lost-in-the-middle" phenomenon with a relative positional variation. And with moderate hyper-parameter-tuning, we can achieve at most 95% of accuracy accordingly. We also study the impact of query rewriting and data distribution, providing possible directions for future research based on former analyses.

In the absence of abundant reliable annotations for challenging tasks and contexts, how can we expand the frontier of LLM capabilities with potentially wrong answers? We focus on two research questions: (1) Can LLMs generate reliable preferences among wrong options? And if so, (2) Would alignment with such wrong-over-wrong preferences be helpful? We employ methods based on self-consistency, token probabilities, and LLM-as-a-judge to elicit wrong-over-wrong preferences, and fine-tune language models with preference optimization approaches using these synthesized preferences. Extensive experiments with seven LLMs and eight datasets demonstrate that (1) LLMs do have preliminary capability in distinguishing various shades of wrong, achieving up to 20.9% higher performance than random guess; (2) Alignment with wrong-over-wrong preferences helps LLMs to produce less wrong and sometimes even outright correct answers, while overall improving model calibration.

Language is not monolithic. While many benchmarks are used as proxies to systematically estimate Large Language Models' (LLM) performance in real-life tasks, they tend to ignore the nuances of within-language variation and thus fail to model the experience of speakers of minority dialects. Focusing on African American Vernacular English (AAVE), we present the first study on LLMs' fairness and robustness to a dialect in canonical reasoning tasks (algorithm, math, logic, and comprehensive reasoning). We hire AAVE speakers, including experts with computer science backgrounds, to rewrite seven popular benchmarks, such as HumanEval and GSM8K. The result of this effort is ReDial, a dialectal benchmark comprising $1.2K+$ parallel query pairs in Standardized English and AAVE. We use ReDial to evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4o/4/3.5-turbo, LLaMA-3.1/3, Mistral, and Phi-3. We find that, compared to Standardized English, almost all of these widely used models show significant brittleness and unfairness to queries in AAVE. Furthermore, AAVE queries can degrade performance more substantially than misspelled texts in Standardized English, even when LLMs are more familiar with the AAVE queries. Finally, asking models to rephrase questions in Standardized English does not close the performance gap but generally introduces higher costs. Overall, our findings indicate that LLMs provide unfair service to dialect users in complex reasoning tasks. Code can be found at https://github.com/fangru-lin/redial_dialect_robustness_fairness.git.

This study investigates judgment prediction in a realistic scenario within the context of Indian judgments, utilizing a range of transformer-based models, including InLegalBERT, BERT, and XLNet, alongside LLMs such as Llama-2 and GPT-3.5 Turbo. In this realistic scenario, we simulate how judgments are predicted at the point when a case is presented for a decision in court, using only the information available at that time, such as the facts of the case, statutes, precedents, and arguments. This approach mimics real-world conditions, where decisions must be made without the benefit of hindsight, unlike retrospective analyses often found in previous studies. For transformer models, we experiment with hierarchical transformers and the summarization of judgment facts to optimize input for these models. Our experiments with LLMs reveal that GPT-3.5 Turbo excels in realistic scenarios, demonstrating robust performance in judgment prediction. Furthermore, incorporating additional legal information, such as statutes and precedents, significantly improves the outcome of the prediction task. The LLMs also provide explanations for their predictions. To evaluate the quality of these predictions and explanations, we introduce two human evaluation metrics: Clarity and Linking. Our findings from both automatic and human evaluations indicate that, despite advancements in LLMs, they are yet to achieve expert-level performance in judgment prediction and explanation tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) pose significant risks due to the potential for generating harmful content or users attempting to evade guardrails. Existing studies have developed LLM-based guard models designed to moderate the input and output of threat LLMs, ensuring adherence to safety policies by blocking content that violates these protocols upon deployment. However, limited attention has been given to the reliability and calibration of such guard models. In this work, we empirically conduct comprehensive investigations of confidence calibration for 9 existing LLM-based guard models on 12 benchmarks in both user input and model output classification. Our findings reveal that current LLM-based guard models tend to 1) produce overconfident predictions, 2) exhibit significant miscalibration when subjected to jailbreak attacks, and 3) demonstrate limited robustness to the outputs generated by different types of response models. Additionally, we assess the effectiveness of post-hoc calibration methods to mitigate miscalibration. We demonstrate the efficacy of temperature scaling and, for the first time, highlight the benefits of contextual calibration for confidence calibration of guard models, particularly in the absence of validation sets. Our analysis and experiments underscore the limitations of current LLM-based guard models and provide valuable insights for the future development of well-calibrated guard models toward more reliable content moderation. We also advocate for incorporating reliability evaluation of confidence calibration when releasing future LLM-based guard models.

The training data for LLMs embeds societal values, increasing their familiarity with the language's culture. Our analysis found that 44% of the variance in the ability of GPT-4o to reflect the societal values of a country, as measured by the World Values Survey, correlates with the availability of digital resources in that language. Notably, the error rate was more than five times higher for the languages of the lowest resource compared to the languages of the highest resource. For GPT-4-turbo, this correlation rose to 72%, suggesting efforts to improve the familiarity with the non-English language beyond the web-scraped data. Our study developed one of the largest and most robust datasets in this topic area with 21 country-language pairs, each of which contain 94 survey questions verified by native speakers. Our results highlight the link between LLM performance and digital data availability in target languages. Weaker performance in low-resource languages, especially prominent in the Global South, may worsen digital divides. We discuss strategies proposed to address this, including developing multilingual LLMs from the ground up and enhancing fine-tuning on diverse linguistic datasets, as seen in African language initiatives.