Daily Papers

Large language models (LLMs) have succeeded significantly in various applications but remain susceptible to adversarial jailbreaks that void their safety guardrails. Previous attempts to exploit these vulnerabilities often rely on high-cost computational extrapolations, which may not be practical or efficient. In this paper, inspired by the authority influence demonstrated in the Milgram experiment, we present a lightweight method to take advantage of the LLMs' personification capabilities to construct a virtual, nested scene, allowing it to realize an adaptive way to escape the usage control in a normal scenario. Empirically, the contents induced by our approach can achieve leading harmfulness rates with previous counterparts and realize a continuous jailbreak in subsequent interactions, which reveals the critical weakness of self-losing on both open-source and closed-source LLMs, e.g., Llama-2, Llama-3, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o. The code and data are available at: https://github.com/tmlr-group/DeepInception.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transitioning into medical clinical use, yet their reliability under realistic, multi-turn interactions remains poorly understood. Existing evaluation frameworks typically assess single-turn question answering under idealized conditions, overlooking the complexities of medical consultations where conflicting input, misleading context, and authority influence are common. We introduce MedQA-Followup, a framework for systematically evaluating multi-turn robustness in medical question answering. Our approach distinguishes between shallow robustness (resisting misleading initial context) and deep robustness (maintaining accuracy when answers are challenged across turns), while also introducing an indirect-direct axis that separates contextual framing (indirect) from explicit suggestion (direct). Using controlled interventions on the MedQA dataset, we evaluate five state-of-the-art LLMs and find that while models perform reasonably well under shallow perturbations, they exhibit severe vulnerabilities in multi-turn settings, with accuracy dropping from 91.2% to as low as 13.5% for Claude Sonnet 4. Counterintuitively, indirect, context-based interventions are often more harmful than direct suggestions, yielding larger accuracy drops across models and exposing a significant vulnerability for clinical deployment. Further compounding analyses reveal model differences, with some showing additional performance drops under repeated interventions while others partially recovering or even improving. These findings highlight multi-turn robustness as a critical but underexplored dimension for safe and reliable deployment of medical LLMs.

While social media empowers freedom of expression and individual voices, it also enables anti-social behavior, online harassment, cyberbullying, and hate speech. In this paper, we deepen our understanding of online hate speech by focusing on a largely neglected but crucial aspect of hate speech -- its target: either "directed" towards a specific person or entity, or "generalized" towards a group of people sharing a common protected characteristic. We perform the first linguistic and psycholinguistic analysis of these two forms of hate speech and reveal the presence of interesting markers that distinguish these types of hate speech. Our analysis reveals that Directed hate speech, in addition to being more personal and directed, is more informal, angrier, and often explicitly attacks the target (via name calling) with fewer analytic words and more words suggesting authority and influence. Generalized hate speech, on the other hand, is dominated by religious hate, is characterized by the use of lethal words such as murder, exterminate, and kill; and quantity words such as million and many. Altogether, our work provides a data-driven analysis of the nuances of online-hate speech that enables not only a deepened understanding of hate speech and its social implications but also its detection.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, raising important questions about their biases in LLM-as-a-judge settings. We present a comprehensive benchmark comparing judging biases between LLMs and LRMs across both subjective preference-alignment datasets and objective fact-based datasets. Through investigation of bandwagon, authority, position, and distraction biases, we uncover four key findings: (1) despite their advanced reasoning capabilities, LRMs remain susceptible to the above biases; (2) LRMs demonstrate better robustness than LLMs specifically on fact-related datasets; (3) LRMs exhibit notable position bias, preferring options in later positions; and (4) we identify a novel "superficial reflection bias" where phrases mimicking reasoning (e.g., "wait, let me think...") significantly influence model judgments. To address these biases, we design and evaluate three mitigation strategies: specialized system prompts that reduce judging biases by up to 19\% in preference alignment datasets and 14\% in fact-related datasets, in-context learning that provides up to 27\% improvement on preference tasks but shows inconsistent results on factual tasks, and a self-reflection mechanism that reduces biases by up to 10\% in preference datasets and 16\% in fact-related datasets, with self-reflection proving particularly effective for LRMs. Our work provides crucial insights for developing more reliable LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, especially as LRMs become increasingly deployed as automated judges.

Peer review is fundamental to the integrity and advancement of scientific publication. Traditional methods of peer review analyses often rely on exploration and statistics of existing peer review data, which do not adequately address the multivariate nature of the process, account for the latent variables, and are further constrained by privacy concerns due to the sensitive nature of the data. We introduce AgentReview, the first large language model (LLM) based peer review simulation framework, which effectively disentangles the impacts of multiple latent factors and addresses the privacy issue. Our study reveals significant insights, including a notable 37.1% variation in paper decisions due to reviewers' biases, supported by sociological theories such as the social influence theory, altruism fatigue, and authority bias. We believe that this study could offer valuable insights to improve the design of peer review mechanisms.