arXiv subjects

Yuanyang Qiu

Publications and source records attributed to Yuanyang Qiu.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AI Peers Exert Social Influence on Human Dishonesty in Groups

Human dishonesty in group settings is highly susceptible to peer influence, particularly when incentivized. Although artificial intelligence (AI) evolves from passive tools into active collaborators, its impact on human moral behavior within groups remains underexplored. We addressed this gap through a two-phase randomized behavioral study (N=280 and N=360). We found AI agents exert substantial social influence comparable in magnitude to that of human peers. Specifically, participants reported more dishonestly when exposed to dishonest rather than honest normative cues. This effect is evident across injunctive, subjective, and descriptive social norms. Interestingly, the only significant adjacent behavioral change occurred when dishonest peer behavior first appeared, whereas further increases from one to four dishonest peers produced weaker and non-monotonic changes. Furthermore, participants rapidly converge on decision-making, showing modest increases in dishonest reporting through repeated exposure. These findings highlight the importance of managing the behaviors and normative signals communicated by AI group members.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

DLawBench: Evaluating LLMs Through Multi-Turn Legal Consultation

Lawyer-client consultation is a critical starting point for legal services. Effective legal assistance hinges on eliciting sufficient and truthful information from clients in order to devise strategies that best protect their interests. This task requires Large Language Models (LLMs) not only to perform robust legal reasoning, but also to strategically elicit material facts through multi-turn interactions and effectively guide clients with diverse personalities. Yet existing legal benchmarks overlook this interactive capability. To fill this gap, we introduce DLawBench, a diagnostic benchmark for real-world legal consultation. Drawing on realistic client behavior, we characterize lawyer-client interactions into four types: Cooperative, Dependent, Withdrawn, and Adversarial. Using dialogues grounded in real cases, DLawBench evaluates whether LLMs can effectively conduct legal consultation under realistic conditions. DLawBench comprises 461 cases from Chinese and U.S. law, 5,532 paired fact entries, 3,411 inquiry rubrics, and 3,348 issue-resolution rubrics, and evaluates 26 representative LLMs. Systematic experiments show substantial headroom: the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves only 0.562 on consultation-grounded legal reasoning. More importantly, DLawBench exposes both sycophancy in legal consultation and a paradox: models perform worse when clients need guidance most.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

PLawBench: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to legal domain-specific tasks, evaluating their ability to perform legal work in real-world settings has become essential. However, existing legal benchmarks rely on simplified and highly standardized tasks, failing to capture the ambiguity, complexity, and reasoning demands of real legal practice. Moreover, prior evaluations often adopt coarse, single-dimensional metrics and do not explicitly assess fine-grained legal reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce PLawBench, a Practical Law Benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic legal practice scenarios. Grounded in real-world legal workflows, PLawBench models the core processes of legal practitioners through three task categories: public legal consultation, practical case analysis, and legal document generation. These tasks assess a model's ability to identify legal issues and key facts, perform structured legal reasoning, and generate legally coherent documents. PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics, resulting in approximately 12,500 rubric items for fine-grained assessment. Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results show that none achieves strong performance on PLawBench, revealing substantial limitations in the fine-grained legal reasoning capabilities of current LLMs and highlighting important directions for future evaluation and development of legal LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/skylenage/PLawbench.

cs.CL↗