José González Such

Xiao Zhan, Guangzhi Sun, Jose Such et al.

Audio Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in the real world, where they inevitably capture speech from unintended nearby bystanders, raising privacy risks that existing benchmarks and defences did not consider. We introduce SH-Bench, the first benchmark designed to evaluate selective hearing: a model's ability to attend to an intended main speaker while refusing to process or reveal information about incidental bystander speech. SH-Bench contains 3,968 multi-speaker audio mixtures, including both real-world and synthetic scenarios, paired with 77k multiple-choice questions that probe models under general and selective operating modes. In addition, we propose Selective Efficacy (SE), a novel metric capturing both multi-speaker comprehension and bystander-privacy protection. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs reveals substantial bystander privacy leakage, with strong audio understanding failing to translate into selective protection of bystander privacy. To mitigate this gap, we also present Bystander Privacy Fine-Tuning (BPFT), a novel training pipeline that teaches models to refuse bystander-related queries without degrading main-speaker comprehension. We show that BPFT yields substantial gains, achieving an absolute 47% higher bystander accuracy under selective mode and an absolute 16% higher SE compared to Gemini 2.5 Pro, which is the best audio LLM without BPFT. Together, SH-Bench and BPFT provide the first systematic framework for measuring and improving bystander privacy in audio LLMs.

Vahid Ghafouri, Vibhor Agarwal, Yong Zhang et al.

The introduction of ChatGPT and the subsequent improvement of Large Language Models (LLMs) have prompted more and more individuals to turn to the use of ChatBots, both for information and assistance with decision-making. However, the information the user is after is often not formulated by these ChatBots objectively enough to be provided with a definite, globally accepted answer. Controversial topics, such as "religion", "gender identity", "freedom of speech", and "equality", among others, can be a source of conflict as partisan or biased answers can reinforce preconceived notions or promote disinformation. By exposing ChatGPT to such debatable questions, we aim to understand its level of awareness and if existing models are subject to socio-political and/or economic biases. We also aim to explore how AI-generated answers compare to human ones. For exploring this, we use a dataset of a social media platform created for the purpose of debating human-generated claims on polemic subjects among users, dubbed Kialo. Our results show that while previous versions of ChatGPT have had important issues with controversial topics, more recent versions of ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo) are no longer manifesting significant explicit biases in several knowledge areas. In particular, it is well-moderated regarding economic aspects. However, it still maintains degrees of implicit libertarian leaning toward right-winged ideals which suggest the need for increased moderation from the socio-political point of view. In terms of domain knowledge on controversial topics, with the exception of the "Philosophical" category, ChatGPT is performing well in keeping up with the collective human level of knowledge. Finally, we see that sources of Bing AI have slightly more tendency to the center when compared to human answers. All the analyses we make are generalizable to other types of biases and domains.

Guangzhi Sun, Xiao Zhan, Shutong Feng et al.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values is essential for their safe deployment and widespread adoption. Current LLM safety benchmarks often focus solely on the refusal of individual problematic queries, which overlooks the importance of the context where the query occurs and may cause undesired refusal of queries under safe contexts that diminish user experience. Addressing this gap, we introduce CASE-Bench, a Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark that integrates context into safety assessments of LLMs. CASE-Bench assigns distinct, formally described contexts to categorized queries based on Contextual Integrity theory. Additionally, in contrast to previous studies which mainly rely on majority voting from just a few annotators, we recruited a sufficient number of annotators necessary to ensure the detection of statistically significant differences among the experimental conditions based on power analysis. Our extensive analysis using CASE-Bench on various open-source and commercial LLMs reveals a substantial and significant influence of context on human judgments (p<0.0001 from a z-test), underscoring the necessity of context in safety evaluations. We also identify notable mismatches between human judgments and LLM responses, particularly in commercial models within safe contexts.