Google may have to break off parts of its business, such as Chrome and Android, and share users' search data with its competitors, based on the proposed remedies the US Justice Department has submitted in a court filing. The DOJ said it's "considering behavioral and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features" after Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that it illegally abused its monopoly over the search industry. That ruling was the result of a 2020 antitrust lawsuit filed by the DOJ and several states, accusing Google of "unlawfully maintaining monopolies" over search and search-related products. The department is also considering limiting or prohibiting Google from signing contracts with other companies to make its search engine the default option for their browsers and phones. In his ruling, Judge Mehta said that paying Mozilla, Apple, Samsung and other device makers to make Google as their default search engine was an illegal act meant to maintain its dominant position in the market. A Google executive previously revealed during a trial for the lawsuit that the the company paid Apple 26 billion.

In this work, we introduce PII-Scope, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate state-of-the-art methodologies for PII extraction attacks targeting LLMs across diverse threat settings. Our study provides a deeper understanding of these attacks by uncovering several hyperparameters (e.g., demonstration selection) crucial to their effectiveness. Building on this understanding, we extend our study to more realistic attack scenarios, exploring PII attacks that employ advanced adversarial strategies, including repeated and diverse querying, and leveraging iterative learning for continual PII extraction. Through extensive experimentation, our results reveal a notable underestimation of PII leakage in existing single-query attacks. In fact, we show that with sophisticated adversarial capabilities and a limited query budget, PII extraction rates can increase by up to fivefold when targeting the pretrained model. Moreover, we evaluate PII leakage on finetuned models, showing that they are more vulnerable to leakage than pretrained models. Overall, our work establishes a rigorous empirical benchmark for PII extraction attacks in realistic threat scenarios and provides a strong foundation for developing effective mitigation strategies.

Collusion is a complex phenomenon in which companies secretly collaborate to engage in fraudulent practices. This paper presents an innovative methodology for detecting and predicting collusion patterns in different national markets using neural networks (NNs) and graph neural networks (GNNs). GNNs are particularly well suited to this task because they can exploit the inherent network structures present in collusion and many other economic problems. Our approach consists of two phases: In Phase I, we develop and train models on individual market datasets from Japan, the United States, two regions in Switzerland, Italy, and Brazil, focusing on predicting collusion in single markets. In Phase II, we extend the models' applicability through zero-shot learning, employing a transfer learning approach that can detect collusion in markets in which training data is unavailable. This phase also incorporates out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization to evaluate the models' performance on unseen datasets from other countries and regions. In our empirical study, we show that GNNs outperform NNs in detecting complex collusive patterns. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on preventing collusion and optimizing detection methodologies, providing valuable guidance on the use of NNs and GNNs in economic applications to enhance market fairness and economic welfare.

Finding answers to legal questions about clauses in contracts is an important form of analysis in many legal workflows (e.g., understanding market trends, due diligence, risk mitigation) but more important is being able to do this at scale. Prior work showed that it is possible to use large language models with simple zero-shot prompts to generate structured answers to questions, which can later be incorporated into legal workflows. Such prompts, while effective on simple and straightforward clauses, fail to perform when the clauses are long and contain information not relevant to the question. In this paper, we propose two-stage prompt chaining to produce structured answers to multiple-choice and multiple-select questions and show that they are more effective than simple prompts on more nuanced legal text. We analyze situations where this technique works well and areas where further refinement is needed, especially when the underlying linguistic variations are more than can be captured by simply specifying possible answers. Finally, we discuss future research that seeks to refine this work by improving stage one results by making them more question-specific.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely adopted for its effectiveness and cost-efficiency in mitigating hallucinations and enhancing the domain-specific generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, is this effectiveness and cost-efficiency truly a free lunch? In this study, we comprehensively investigate the fairness costs associated with RAG by proposing a practical three-level threat model from the perspective of user awareness of fairness. Specifically, varying levels of user fairness awareness result in different degrees of fairness censorship on the external dataset. We examine the fairness implications of RAG using uncensored, partially censored, and fully censored datasets. Our experiments demonstrate that fairness alignment can be easily undermined through RAG without the need for fine-tuning or retraining. Even with fully censored and supposedly unbiased external datasets, RAG can lead to biased outputs. Our findings underscore the limitations of current alignment methods in the context of RAG-based LLMs and highlight the urgent need for new strategies to ensure fairness. We propose potential mitigations and call for further research to develop robust fairness safeguards in RAG-based LLMs.

The widespread deployment of large language models (LLMs) has led to impressive advancements, yet information about their training data, a critical factor in their performance, remains undisclosed. Membership inference attacks (MIAs) aim to determine whether a specific instance was part of a target model's training data. However, applying MIAs to LLMs presents unique challenges due to the massive scale of pre-training data and the ambiguous nature of membership. Additionally, creating appropriate benchmarks to evaluate MIA methods is not straightforward, as training and test data distributions are often unknown. In this paper, we introduce EM-MIA, a novel MIA method for LLMs that iteratively refines membership scores and prefix scores via an expectation-maximization algorithm, leveraging the duality that the estimates of these scores can be improved by each other. Membership scores and prefix scores assess how each instance is likely to be a member and discriminative as a prefix, respectively. Our method achieves state-of-the-art results on the WikiMIA dataset. To further evaluate EM-MIA, we present OLMoMIA, a benchmark built from OLMo resources, which allows us to control the difficulty of MIA tasks with varying degrees of overlap between training and test data distributions. We believe that EM-MIA serves as a robust MIA method for LLMs and that OLMoMIA provides a valuable resource for comprehensively evaluating MIA approaches, thereby driving future research in this critical area. Large language models (LLMs) (Brown et al., 2020; Touvron et al., 2023b) have recently emerged as a groundbreaking development and have had a transformative impact in many fields.

This paper introduces Knowledge Representation Augmented Generation (KRAG), a novel framework designed to enhance the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) within domain-specific applications. KRAG points to the strategic inclusion of critical knowledge entities and relationships that are typically absent in standard data sets and which LLMs do not inherently learn. In the context of legal applications, we present Soft PROLEG, an implementation model under KRAG, which uses inference graphs to aid LLMs in delivering structured legal reasoning, argumentation, and explanations tailored to user inquiries. The integration of KRAG, either as a standalone framework or in tandem with retrieval augmented generation (RAG), markedly improves the ability of language models to navigate and solve the intricate challenges posed by legal texts and terminologies.

Factors are a foundational component of legal analysis and computational models of legal reasoning. These factor-based representations enable lawyers, judges, and AI and Law researchers to reason about legal cases. In this paper, we introduce a methodology that leverages large language models (LLMs) to discover lists of factors that effectively represent a legal domain. Our method takes as input raw court opinions and produces a set of factors and associated definitions. We demonstrate that a semi-automated approach, incorporating minimal human involvement, produces factor representations that can predict case outcomes with moderate success, if not yet as well as expert-defined factors can.

Mediation is a dispute resolution method featuring a neutral third-party (mediator) who intervenes to help the individuals resolve their dispute. In this paper, we investigate to which extent large language models (LLMs) are able to act as mediators. We investigate whether LLMs are able to analyze dispute conversations, select suitable intervention types, and generate appropriate intervention messages. Using a novel, manually created dataset of 50 dispute scenarios, we conduct a blind evaluation comparing LLMs with human annotators across several key metrics. Overall, the LLMs showed strong performance, even outperforming our human annotators across dimensions. Specifically, in 62% of the cases, the LLMs chose intervention types that were rated as better than or equivalent to those chosen by humans. Moreover, in 84% of the cases, the intervention messages generated by the LLMs were rated as better than or equal to the intervention messages written by humans. LLMs likewise performed favourably on metrics such as impartiality, understanding and contextualization. Our results demonstrate the potential of integrating AI in online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities across various domains, including role-playing, creative writing, mathematical reasoning, and coding. Despite these advancements, LLMs still encounter challenges with length control, frequently failing to adhere to specific length constraints due to their token-level operations and insufficient training on data with strict length limitations. We identify this issue as stemming from a lack of positional awareness and propose novel approaches--PositionID Prompting and PositionID Fine-Tuning--to address it. These methods enhance the model's ability to continuously monitor and manage text length during generation. Additionally, we introduce PositionID CP Prompting to enable LLMs to perform copy and paste operations accurately. Furthermore, we develop two benchmarks for evaluating length control and copy-paste abilities. Our experiments demonstrate that our methods significantly improve the model's adherence to length constraints and copy-paste accuracy without compromising response quality.