As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive domains such as enterprise and government, ensuring that they adhere to user-defined security policies within context is critical-especially with respect to information non-disclosure. While prior LLM studies have focused on general safety and socially sensitive data, large-scale benchmarks for contextual security preservation against attacks remain lacking. To address this, we introduce a novel large-scale benchmark dataset, CoPriva, evaluating LLM adherence to contextual non-disclosure policies in question answering. Derived from realistic contexts, our dataset includes explicit policies and queries designed as direct and challenging indirect attacks seeking prohibited information. We evaluate 10 LLMs on our benchmark and reveal a significant vulnerability: many models violate user-defined policies and leak sensitive information. This failure is particularly severe against indirect attacks, highlighting a critical gap in current LLM safety alignment for sensitive applications. Our analysis reveals that while models can often identify the correct answer to a query, they struggle to incorporate policy constraints during generation. In contrast, they exhibit a partial ability to revise outputs when explicitly prompted. Our findings underscore the urgent need for more robust methods to guarantee contextual security.

We study the automated derivation of safety requirements in a self-driving vehicle use case, leveraging LLMs in combination with agent-based retrieval-augmented generation. Conventional approaches that utilise pre-trained LLMs to assist in safety analyses typically lack domain-specific knowledge. Existing RAG approaches address this issue, yet their performance deteriorates when handling complex queries and it becomes increasingly harder to retrieve the most relevant information. This is particularly relevant for safety-relevant applications. In this paper, we propose the use of agent-based RAG to derive safety requirements and show that the retrieved information is more relevant to the queries. We implement an agent-based approach on a document pool of automotive standards and the Apollo case study, as a representative example of an automated driving perception system. Our solution is tested on a data set of safety requirement questions and answers, extracted from the Apollo data. Evaluating a set of selected RAG metrics, we present and discuss advantages of a agent-based approach compared to default RAG methods.

Inverse tasks can uncover potential reasoning gaps as Large Language Models (LLMs) scale up. In this work, we explore the redefinition task, in which we assign alternative values to well-known physical constants and units of measure, prompting LLMs to respond accordingly. Our findings show that not only does model performance degrade with scale, but its false confidence also rises. Moreover, while factors such as prompting strategies or response formatting are influential, they do not preclude LLMs from anchoring to memorized values.

Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing, raising the risk that users will rely on these responses as if they were correct. Mitigating such overreliance is a key challenge. Through a think-aloud study in which participants use an LLM-infused application to answer objective questions, we identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance: explanations (supporting details for answers), inconsistencies in explanations, and sources. Through a large-scale, pre-registered, controlled experiment (N=308), we isolate and study the effects of these features on users' reliance, accuracy, and other measures. We find that the presence of explanations increases reliance on both correct and incorrect responses. However, we observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies. We discuss the implications of these findings for fostering appropriate reliance on LLMs.

This paper presents a novel methodological framework for detecting and classifying latent constructs, including frames, narratives, and topics, from textual data using Open-Source Large Language Models (LLMs). The proposed hybrid approach combines automated summarization with human-in-the-loop validation to enhance the accuracy and interpretability of construct identification. By employing iterative sampling coupled with expert refinement, the framework guarantees methodological robustness and ensures conceptual precision. Applied to diverse data sets, including AI policy debates, newspaper articles on encryption, and the 20 Newsgroups data set, this approach demonstrates its versatility in systematically analyzing complex political discourses, media framing, and topic classification tasks.

Recent advancements in large language model(LLM) performance on medical multiple choice question (MCQ) benchmarks have stimulated interest from healthcare providers and patients globally. Particularly in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) facing acute physician shortages and lack of specialists, LLMs offer a potentially scalable pathway to enhance healthcare access and reduce costs. However, their effectiveness in the Global South, especially across the African continent, remains to be established. In this work, we introduce AfriMed-QA, the first large scale Pan-African English multi-specialty medical Question-Answering (QA) dataset, 15,000 questions (open and closed-ended) sourced from over 60 medical schools across 16 countries, covering 32 medical specialties. We further evaluate 30 LLMs across multiple axes including correctness and demographic bias. Our findings show significant performance variation across specialties and geographies, MCQ performance clearly lags USMLE (MedQA). We find that biomedical LLMs underperform general models and smaller edge-friendly LLMs struggle to achieve a passing score. Interestingly, human evaluations show a consistent consumer preference for LLM answers and explanations when compared with clinician answers.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming essential tools for various natural language processing tasks but often suffer from generating outdated or incorrect information. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) addresses this issue by incorporating external, real-time information retrieval to ground LLM responses. However, the existing RAG systems frequently struggle with the quality of retrieval documents, as irrelevant or noisy documents degrade performance, increase computational overhead, and undermine response reliability. To tackle this problem, we propose Multi-Agent Filtering Retrieval-Augmented Generation (MAIN-RAG), a training-free RAG framework that leverages multiple LLM agents to collaboratively filter and score retrieved documents. Specifically, MAIN-RAG introduces an adaptive filtering mechanism that dynamically adjusts the relevance filtering threshold based on score distributions, effectively minimizing noise while maintaining high recall of relevant documents. The proposed approach leverages inter-agent consensus to ensure robust document selection without requiring additional training data or fine-tuning. Experimental results across four QA benchmarks demonstrate that MAIN-RAG consistently outperforms traditional RAG approaches, achieving a 2-11% improvement in answer accuracy while reducing the number of irrelevant retrieved documents. Quantitative analysis further reveals that our approach achieves superior response consistency and answer accuracy over baseline methods, offering a competitive and practical alternative to training-based solutions.

This paper presents a shared task that we organized at the Foundations of Language Technology (FoLT) course in 2023/2024 at the Technical University of Darmstadt, which focuses on evaluating the output of Large Language Models (LLMs) in generating harmful answers to health-related clinical questions. We describe the task design considerations and report the feedback we received from the students. We expect the task and the findings reported in this paper to be relevant for instructors teaching natural language processing (NLP) and designing course assignments.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are revolutionizing various domains, yet verifying their answers remains a significant challenge, especially for intricate open-ended tasks such as consolidation, summarization, and extraction of knowledge. In this work, we propose CheckEmbed: an accurate, scalable, and simple LLM verification approach. CheckEmbed is driven by a straightforward yet powerful idea: in order to compare LLM solutions to one another or to the ground-truth, compare their corresponding answer-level embeddings obtained with a model such as GPT Text Embedding Large. This reduces a complex textual answer to a single embedding, facilitating straightforward, fast, and meaningful verification. We develop a comprehensive verification pipeline implementing the CheckEmbed methodology. The CheckEmbed pipeline also comes with metrics for assessing the truthfulness of the LLM answers, such as embedding heatmaps and their summaries. We show how to use these metrics for deploying practical engines that decide whether an LLM answer is satisfactory or not. We apply the pipeline to real-world document analysis tasks, including term extraction and document summarization, showcasing significant improvements in accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and runtime performance compared to existing token-, sentence-, and fact-level schemes such as BERTScore or SelfCheckGPT.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in tasks such as summarization, arithmetic reasoning, and question answering. However, they encounter significant challenges in the domain of moral reasoning and ethical decision-making, especially in complex scenarios with multiple stakeholders. This paper introduces the Skin-in-the-Game (SKIG) framework, aimed at enhancing moral reasoning in LLMs by exploring decisions' consequences from multiple stakeholder perspectives. Central to SKIG's mechanism is simulating accountability for actions, which, alongside empathy exercises and risk assessment, is pivotal to its effectiveness. We validate SKIG's performance across various moral reasoning benchmarks with proprietary and opensource LLMs, and investigate its crucial components through extensive ablation analyses.