Daily Papers

Multi-agent LLM systems commonly use an orchestrator to decompose a task for a team of workers and then improve through textual reflection. Despite strong empirical results, these systems lack a unified account of coordination, memory improvement, and the role of external verification. We model orchestrator-worker interaction as a bilevel coordination game: under bounded coupling, the workers' local-update game is an approximate potential game whose equilibrium slack is controlled by decomposition quality. We then analyse reflection as stochastic movement over semantic memory states. For free-form reflection, we derive a finite-time upper bound, prove worst-case tightness, and give a positive lower bound under a falsifiable persistent-harm condition. We further prove an information-theoretic impossibility result: no gate that observes only the generated transcript can improve uniformly over text-indistinguishable environments, whereas an environment-grounded gate can. Motivated by this separation, we introduce Stochastic Reflective Memory Ascent (SRMA), which accepts a candidate memory only after a grounded evaluation risk strictly decreases. Under calibration and non-degenerate corrective mass, SRMA converges exactly, geometrically or polynomially; matching constructions show that both rate regimes are order-tight. We also provide confidence gating for stochastic evaluation and re-anchoring guarantees for piecewise-stationary environments. Experiments instantiate these objects with environment-grounded metrics and test the predicted coordination and drift laws. On 500 SWE-bench instances, the complete Kimi-based system resolves 72.2% versus a 70.8% public mini-SWE-agent reference. Code: https://github.com/YihangChen9/Bilevel-Coordinated-Reflection

Background: Emerging reports of "AI psychosis" are on the rise, where user-LLM interactions may exacerbate or induce psychosis or adverse psychological symptoms. Whilst the sycophantic and agreeable nature of LLMs can be beneficial, it becomes a vector for harm by reinforcing delusional beliefs in vulnerable users. Methods: Psychosis-bench is a novel benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the psychogenicity of LLMs comprises 16 structured, 12-turn conversational scenarios simulating the progression of delusional themes(Erotic Delusions, Grandiose/Messianic Delusions, Referential Delusions) and potential harms. We evaluated eight prominent LLMs for Delusion Confirmation (DCS), Harm Enablement (HES), and Safety Intervention(SIS) across explicit and implicit conversational contexts. Findings: Across 1,536 simulated conversation turns, all LLMs demonstrated psychogenic potential, showing a strong tendency to perpetuate rather than challenge delusions (mean DCS of 0.91 pm0.88). Models frequently enabled harmful user requests (mean HES of 0.69 pm0.84) and offered safety interventions in only roughly a third of applicable turns (mean SIS of 0.37 pm0.48). 51 / 128 (39.8%) of scenarios had no safety interventions offered. Performance was significantly worse in implicit scenarios, models were more likely to confirm delusions and enable harm while offering fewer interventions (p < .001). A strong correlation was found between DCS and HES (rs = .77). Model performance varied widely, indicating that safety is not an emergent property of scale alone. Conclusion: This study establishes LLM psychogenicity as a quantifiable risk and underscores the urgent need for re-thinking how we train LLMs. We frame this issue not merely as a technical challenge but as a public health imperative requiring collaboration between developers, policymakers, and healthcare professionals.

Millions of individuals' well-being are challenged by the harms of substance use. Harm reduction as a public health strategy is designed to improve their health outcomes and reduce safety risks. Some large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a decent level of medical knowledge, promising to address the information needs of people who use drugs (PWUD). However, their performance in relevant tasks remains largely unexplored. We introduce HRIPBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLM's accuracy and safety risks in harm reduction information provision. The benchmark dataset HRIP-Basic has 2,160 question-answer-evidence pairs. The scope covers three tasks: checking safety boundaries, providing quantitative values, and inferring polysubstance use risks. We build the Instruction and RAG schemes to evaluate model behaviours based on their inherent knowledge and the integration of domain knowledge. Our results indicate that state-of-the-art LLMs still struggle to provide accurate harm reduction information, and sometimes, carry out severe safety risks to PWUD. The use of LLMs in harm reduction contexts should be cautiously constrained to avoid inducing negative health outcomes. WARNING: This paper contains illicit content that potentially induces harms.

Large language models are increasingly used for mental health support, yet their conversational coherence alone does not ensure clinical appropriateness. Existing general-purpose safeguards often fail to distinguish between therapeutic disclosures and genuine clinical crises, leading to safety failures. To address this gap, we introduce a clinically grounded risk taxonomy, developed in collaboration with PhD-level psychologists, that identifies actionable harm (e.g., self-harm and harm to others) while preserving space for safe, non-crisis therapeutic content. We release MindGuard-testset, a dataset of real-world multi-turn conversations annotated at the turn level by clinical experts. Using synthetic dialogues generated via a controlled two-agent setup, we train MindGuard, a family of lightweight safety classifiers (with 4B and 8B parameters). Our classifiers reduce false positives at high-recall operating points and, when paired with clinician language models, help achieve lower attack success and harmful engagement rates in adversarial multi-turn interactions compared to general-purpose safeguards. We release all models and human evaluation data.

Language model deployments in consumer-facing applications introduce numerous risks. While existing research on harms and hazards of such applications follows top-down approaches derived from regulatory frameworks and theoretical analyses, empirical evidence of real-world failure modes remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce RealHarm, a dataset of annotated problematic interactions with AI agents built from a systematic review of publicly reported incidents. Analyzing harms, causes, and hazards specifically from the deployer's perspective, we find that reputational damage constitutes the predominant organizational harm, while misinformation emerges as the most common hazard category. We empirically evaluate state-of-the-art guardrails and content moderation systems to probe whether such systems would have prevented the incidents, revealing a significant gap in the protection of AI applications.

Understanding the prevalence of misinformation in health topics online can inform public health policies and interventions. However, measuring such misinformation at scale remains a challenge, particularly for high-stakes but understudied topics like opioid-use disorder (OUD)--a leading cause of death in the U.S. We present the first large-scale study of OUD-related myths on YouTube, a widely-used platform for health information. With clinical experts, we validate 8 pervasive myths and release an expert-labeled video dataset. To scale labeling, we introduce MythTriage, an efficient triage pipeline that uses a lightweight model for routine cases and defers harder ones to a high-performing, but costlier, large language model (LLM). MythTriage achieves up to 0.86 macro F1-score while estimated to reduce annotation time and financial cost by over 76% compared to experts and full LLM labeling. We analyze 2.9K search results and 343K recommendations, uncovering how myths persist on YouTube and offering actionable insights for public health and platform moderation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as scalable tools for mental health counseling, yet evaluating their safety remains challenging due to the interactional and context-dependent nature of clinical harm. Existing evaluation frameworks predominantly assess isolated responses using coarse-grained taxonomies or static datasets, limiting their ability to diagnose how harms emerge and accumulate over multi-turn counseling interactions. In this work, we introduce R-MHSafe, a role-aware mental health safety taxonomy that characterizes clinically significant harm in terms of the interactional roles an AI counselor adopts, including perpetrator, instigator, facilitator, or enabler, combined with clinically grounded harm categories. Then, we propose MHSafeEval, a closed-loop, agent-based evaluation framework that formulates safety assessment as trajectory-level discovery of harm through adversarial multi-turn interactions, guided by role-aware modeling. Using R-MHSafe and MHSafeEval, we conduct a large-scale evaluation across state-of-the-art LLMs. Our results reveal substantial role-dependent and cumulative safety failures that are systematically missed by existing static benchmarks, and show that our framework significantly improves failure-mode coverage and diagnostic granularity.

Alignment faking (AF) occurs when an LLM strategically complies with training objectives to avoid value modification, reverting to prior preferences once monitoring is lifted. Current detection methods focus on conversational settings and rely primarily on Chain-of-Thought (CoT) analysis, which provides a reliable signal when strategic reasoning surfaces, but cannot distinguish deception from capability failures if traces are absent or unfaithful. We formalize AF as a composite behavioural event and detect it through observable tool selection, where the LLM selects the safe tool when unmonitored, but switches to the unsafe tool under monitoring that rewards helpfulness over safety, while its reasoning still acknowledges the safe choice. We release a dataset of 108 enterprise IT scenarios spanning Security, Privacy, and Integrity domains under Corruption and Sabotage pressures. Evaluating six frontier LLMs across five independent runs, we find mean AF detection rates between 3.5% and 23.7%, with vulnerability profiles varying by domain and pressure type. These results suggest that susceptibility reflects training methodology rather than capability alone.

Misinformation in healthcare, from vaccine hesitancy to unproven treatments, poses risks to public health and trust in medical systems. While machine learning and natural language processing have advanced automated fact-checking, validating biomedical claims remains uniquely challenging due to complex terminology, the need for domain expertise, and the critical importance of grounding in scientific evidence. We introduce CER (Combining Evidence and Reasoning), a novel framework for biomedical fact-checking that integrates scientific evidence retrieval, reasoning via large language models, and supervised veracity prediction. By integrating the text-generation capabilities of large language models with advanced retrieval techniques for high-quality biomedical scientific evidence, CER effectively mitigates the risk of hallucinations, ensuring that generated outputs are grounded in verifiable, evidence-based sources. Evaluations on expert-annotated datasets (HealthFC, BioASQ-7b, SciFact) demonstrate state-of-the-art performance and promising cross-dataset generalization. Code and data are released for transparency and reproducibility: https: //github.com/PRAISELab-PicusLab/CER.

A prominent challenge of offline reinforcement learning (RL) is the issue of hidden confounding: unobserved variables may influence both the actions taken by the agent and the observed outcomes. Hidden confounding can compromise the validity of any causal conclusion drawn from data and presents a major obstacle to effective offline RL. In the present paper, we tackle the problem of hidden confounding in the nonidentifiable setting. We propose a definition of uncertainty due to hidden confounding bias, termed delphic uncertainty, which uses variation over world models compatible with the observations, and differentiate it from the well-known epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties. We derive a practical method for estimating the three types of uncertainties, and construct a pessimistic offline RL algorithm to account for them. Our method does not assume identifiability of the unobserved confounders, and attempts to reduce the amount of confounding bias. We demonstrate through extensive experiments and ablations the efficacy of our approach on a sepsis management benchmark, as well as on electronic health records. Our results suggest that nonidentifiable hidden confounding bias can be mitigated to improve offline RL solutions in practice.

Mental health professionals have raised concerns about risks of psychological harm from interaction with large language models (LLMs), including "delusional spirals" in which concerning human and LLM behaviors reinforce each other over time. With growing public use of LLM-powered chatbots, there is an urgent need to build evaluations grounded in real-world episodes of psychological harm experienced by users. We developed DelusionEval, an evaluation protocol that tests a model's tendencies to exhibit behaviors linked to promoting user delusions. We prompt each model with 589 unique conversation histories from 18 participants, comprising 12,591 messages from users who experienced delusions and psychological harm. We find that the tendency of an evaluated LLM to exhibit delusion-linked behavior does not reliably correlate with model size, release date, or the presence of test-time reasoning. However, extending the context of prior messages substantially increases rates of delusion-linked behaviors, providing evidence for the importance of context in LLM safety evaluation. For example, the rate of failing to discourage self-harm when the user expresses suicidal ideation increases from 30.0% to 41.1% when an additional 350 messages are prepended to the conversation history. All model families (e.g., GPT, Claude) exhibit substantial rates of delusion-linked behaviors. Within families, later, larger, or higher-reasoning models are not uniformly better across all behavior categories. Our results raise concerns regarding the potential psychological impact of LLMs and the need for more rigorous studies of real-world human-AI interaction.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where rare but severe failures can result in irreversible harm. However, prevailing evaluation benchmarks often reduce complex social risk to mean-centered scalar scores, thereby obscuring distributional structure, cross-dimensional interactions, and worst-case behavior. This paper introduces Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles (SHARP), a framework for multidimensional, distribution-aware evaluation of social harm. SHARP models harm as a multivariate random variable and integrates explicit decomposition into bias, fairness, ethics, and epistemic reliability with a union-of-failures aggregation reparameterized as additive cumulative log-risk. The framework further employs risk-sensitive distributional statistics, with Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR95) as a primary metric, to characterize worst-case model behavior. Application of SHARP to eleven frontier LLMs, evaluated on a fixed corpus of n=901 socially sensitive prompts, reveals that models with similar average risk can exhibit more than twofold differences in tail exposure and volatility. Across models, dimension-wise marginal tail behavior varies systematically across harm dimensions, with bias exhibiting the strongest tail severities, epistemic and fairness risks occupying intermediate regimes, and ethical misalignment consistently lower; together, these patterns reveal heterogeneous, model-dependent failure structures that scalar benchmarks conflate. These findings indicate that responsible evaluation and governance of LLMs require moving beyond scalar averages toward multidimensional, tail-sensitive risk profiling.

Suicide prevention remains a critical public health challenge. While online platforms such as Reddit's r/SuicideWatch have historically provided spaces for individuals to express suicidal thoughts and seek community support, the advent of large language models (LLMs) introduces a new paradigm-where individuals may begin disclosing ideation to AI systems instead of humans. This study evaluates the capability of LLMs to perform automated suicide risk assessment using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). We assess the zero-shot performance of six models-including Claude, GPT, Mistral, and LLaMA-in classifying posts across a 7-point severity scale (Levels 0-6). Results indicate that Claude and GPT closely align with human annotations, while Mistral achieves the lowest ordinal prediction error. Most models exhibit ordinal sensitivity, with misclassifications typically occurring between adjacent severity levels. We further analyze confusion patterns, misclassification sources, and ethical considerations, underscoring the importance of human oversight, transparency, and cautious deployment. Full code and supplementary materials are available at https://github.com/av9ash/llm_cssrs_code.

Foundation Models that are capable of processing and generating multi-modal data have transformed AI's role in medicine. However, a key limitation of their reliability is hallucination, where inaccurate or fabricated information can impact clinical decisions and patient safety. We define medical hallucination as any instance in which a model generates misleading medical content. This paper examines the unique characteristics, causes, and implications of medical hallucinations, with a particular focus on how these errors manifest themselves in real-world clinical scenarios. Our contributions include (1) a taxonomy for understanding and addressing medical hallucinations, (2) benchmarking models using medical hallucination dataset and physician-annotated LLM responses to real medical cases, providing direct insight into the clinical impact of hallucinations, and (3) a multi-national clinician survey on their experiences with medical hallucinations. Our results reveal that inference techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Search Augmented Generation can effectively reduce hallucination rates. However, despite these improvements, non-trivial levels of hallucination persist. These findings underscore the ethical and practical imperative for robust detection and mitigation strategies, establishing a foundation for regulatory policies that prioritize patient safety and maintain clinical integrity as AI becomes more integrated into healthcare. The feedback from clinicians highlights the urgent need for not only technical advances but also for clearer ethical and regulatory guidelines to ensure patient safety. A repository organizing the paper resources, summaries, and additional information is available at https://github.com/mitmedialab/medical hallucination.

Misinformation in healthcare, from vaccine hesitancy to unproven treatments, poses risks to public health and trust in medical systems. While machine learning and natural language processing have advanced automated fact-checking, validating biomedical claims remains uniquely challenging due to complex terminology, the need for domain expertise, and the critical importance of grounding in scientific evidence. We introduce CER (Combining Evidence and Reasoning), a novel framework for biomedical fact-checking that integrates scientific evidence retrieval, reasoning via large language models, and supervised veracity prediction. By integrating the text-generation capabilities of large language models with advanced retrieval techniques for high-quality biomedical scientific evidence, CER effectively mitigates the risk of hallucinations, ensuring that generated outputs are grounded in verifiable, evidence-based sources. Evaluations on expert-annotated datasets (HealthFC, BioASQ-7b, SciFact) demonstrate state-of-the-art performance and promising cross-dataset generalization. Code and data are released for transparency and reproducibility: https://github.com/PRAISELab-PicusLab/CER

Vision-language model safety benchmarks typically evaluate only final responses: whether a model refuses, warns, or complies. This outcome-level view cannot tell whether a model is safe for the right multimodal reason. Safelooking behavior may reflect keyword-triggered refusal, missed visual hazards, or over-refusal of benign-sensitive inputs. We introduce EviSafe, an evidence-grounded framework for VLM safety that jointly evaluates natural user-facing behavior, explicit grounding in textual and visual evidence, and behavioral sensitivity to counterfactual changes in safety-critical evidence. EviSafeBench instantiates the framework as a controlled benchmark with 1,181 gold image-text scenarios and 2,452 targeted counterfactual variants across eight safety domains and eight risk-source types. Each scenario includes a gold safety decision, evidence annotations, a safe-response policy, and counterfactual interventions. The three-probe protocol queries models with natural-response, evidencereporting, and counterfactual-response prompts, then scores them using an evidence-aware judge. Across eleven evaluated VLMs, natural severity accuracy ranges from 27.6% to 52.8%, relaxed diagnostic consistency from 6.1% to 29.3%, and unsafe-to-safe counterfactual transition success from 30.4% to 58.4%. These gaps show that the evaluated VLMs are not reliably safe for the right multimodal reason and motivate evaluation beyond refusal counts.

With the introduction of ChatGPT, Large Language Models (LLMs) have received enormous attention in healthcare. Despite their potential benefits, researchers have underscored various ethical implications. While individual instances have drawn much attention, the debate lacks a systematic overview of practical applications currently researched and ethical issues connected to them. Against this background, this work aims to map the ethical landscape surrounding the current stage of deployment of LLMs in medicine and healthcare. Electronic databases and preprint servers were queried using a comprehensive search strategy. Studies were screened and extracted following a modified rapid review approach. Methodological quality was assessed using a hybrid approach. For 53 records, a meta-aggregative synthesis was performed. Four fields of applications emerged and testify to a vivid exploration phase. Advantages of using LLMs are attributed to their capacity in data analysis, personalized information provisioning, support in decision-making, mitigating information loss and enhancing information accessibility. However, we also identifies recurrent ethical concerns connected to fairness, bias, non-maleficence, transparency, and privacy. A distinctive concern is the tendency to produce harmful misinformation or convincingly but inaccurate content. A recurrent plea for ethical guidance and human oversight is evident. Given the variety of use cases, it is suggested that the ethical guidance debate be reframed to focus on defining what constitutes acceptable human oversight across the spectrum of applications. This involves considering diverse settings, varying potentials for harm, and different acceptable thresholds for performance and certainty in healthcare. In addition, a critical inquiry is necessary to determine the extent to which the current experimental use of LLMs is necessary and justified.

Large language models (LLMs) now reach expert-level scores on medical licensing exams, encouraging the assumption that high scores imply safe medical judgment while patients increasingly use them for health advice. We show this assumption is fragile: when misleading context is injected into questions that LLMs originally answer correctly, they abandon the correct answer. We call the ability to maintain correct judgment under adversarial context epistemic resilience, and introduce MedMisBench to measure it. MedMisBench contains 10,932 medical question items and 48,889 misleading context-option pairs spanning medical reasoning, agentic capability, and patient-journey evaluation. Across 11 model configurations, mean accuracy falls from 71.1% on original questions to 38.0% under focused misleading context, with 51.5% attack success. The most damaging injections are formal, rule-like fabrications: authority-framed falsehoods reach 69.5% attack success and exception-poisoning claims reach 64.1%. A 14-member clinical panel from 7 countries identified serious potential harm in 38.2% of reviewed cases. MedMisBench exposes a structural blind spot in LLM evaluation in medical settings: existing benchmarks measure what models know, but not whether they preserve correct medical judgment under misleading context.

Safety alignment in open-weight language models is trivially removable: abliteration projects a refusal-mediating direction out of the weights in minutes, and no release-time defense we are aware of prevents it durably. What cannot be prevented can be deceived. Our defense, decoy hardening ("Fool's Gold"), concedes the refusal strip and poisons its payoff: once refusal is stripped, most answers to hazardous operational requests are confident, fluent decoys whose critical elements are falsified. Decoys are trained inside a differentiable simulation of the attack, expressing only in the attacked state; a refusal pin and benign leash hold clean-state behavior to the original. We instantiate it on seven models from five families (9B-122B, dense and mixture-of-experts). On the six models passing our pre-registered efficacy gate, 0.51-0.90 of attacked-state responses to held-out prompts are decoys, +0.27-0.84 attributable to the defense; all six stay within registered benign-behavior and capability budgets; the seventh (smaller) fails the gate (boundary case). Rates replicate on a frozen test split or untouched strata. The claim is epistemic: without independent ground truth, no observation surface we tested separates falsified answers from correct ones - on external red-team benchmarks' CBRNE-adjacent slice, the defended 122B is fatally wrong on 0.82-0.86 of matched-quality answers vs at most 0.10 undefended. Repeated sampling does not restore trust: element-wise consensus at K=64 reconstructs a fully usable procedure on 0.083-0.625 of prompts where the instrument validates, vs 0.58-0.96 undefended, with no label-free way to tell the regimes apart; on the weakest such model the claim is per-draw only. We evaluate chemical and biological hazards; the defense does not address in-context jailbreaks and protects only the initially released defended weights.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific writing promises efficiency but risks introducing informational entropy. While "hallucinated papers" are a known artifact, the systematic degradation of valid citation chains remains unquantified. We conducted a forensic audit of 50 recent survey papers in Artificial Intelligence (N=5,514 citations) published between September 2024 and January 2026. We utilized a hybrid verification pipeline combining DOI resolution, Crossref metadata analysis, Semantic Scholar queries, and fuzzy text matching to distinguish between formatting errors ("Sloppiness") and verifiable non-existence ("Phantoms). We detect a persistent 17.0% Phantom Rate -- citations that cannot be resolved to any digital object despite aggressive forensic recovery. Diagnostic categorization reveals three distinct failure modes: pure hallucinations (5.1%), hallucinated identifiers with valid titles (16.4%), and parsing-induced matching failures (78.5%). Longitudinal analysis reveals a flat trend (+0.07 pp/month), suggesting that high-entropy citation practices have stabilized as an endemic feature of the field. The scientific citation graph in AI survey literature exhibits "link rot" at scale. This suggests a mechanism where AI tools act as "lazy research assistants," retrieving correct titles but hallucinating metadata, thereby severing the digital chain of custody required for reproducible science.

Safety claims on self-improving agent runtimes are almost always self-graded: a policy file, a guardrail, or a README commitment. We describe falsifiable release gates, and a methodology to build and validate such systems, such that every new capability must pass a pre-specified, machine-verifiable acceptance suite before it ships, and a fixed set of standing invariants is preserved at each gate. I think we applied the method in the Antahkarana, an open runtime, via seven gates from basic observability into a self governing loop that suggests changes to its own policy. no action goes to an effector without a safety-critical property capability token minted by a control ring is exhaustively machine-checked over the one million recorded reachable state space of a bounded model and re-checked against execution traces. A purposely broken model gives the shortest counterexample, so the checker has teeth, is apparent. The self-enhancement loop is positively Constrained: the entire write surface is policy rules, tightening changes. may auto-apply loosening changes always require a human merge and a proposal autoclosed is one that mispredicts its own effect; We publish the acceptance measured results for all the seven gates, define precisely the scope of each claim (a bounded of the coordination skeleton (not the learned components) and free the runtime, either command line tools and the gate suite, so the results reproduce, and gates can run against other agent frameworks. Reviewers may repeat the single command central non-bypass in seconds.

Large language models (LLMs) typically deploy safety mechanisms to prevent harmful content generation. Most current approaches focus narrowly on risks posed by malicious actors, often framing risks as adversarial events and relying on defensive refusals. However, in real-world settings, risks also come from non-malicious users seeking help while under psychological distress (e.g., self-harm intentions). In such cases, the model's response can strongly influence the user's next actions. Simple refusals may lead them to repeat, escalate, or move to unsafe platforms, creating worse outcomes. We introduce Constructive Safety Alignment (CSA), a human-centric paradigm that protects against malicious misuse while actively guiding vulnerable users toward safe and helpful results. Implemented in Oyster-I (Oy1), CSA combines game-theoretic anticipation of user reactions, fine-grained risk boundary discovery, and interpretable reasoning control, turning safety into a trust-building process. Oy1 achieves state-of-the-art safety among open models while retaining high general capabilities. On our Constructive Benchmark, it shows strong constructive engagement, close to GPT-5, and unmatched robustness on the Strata-Sword jailbreak dataset, nearing GPT-o1 levels. By shifting from refusal-first to guidance-first safety, CSA redefines the model-user relationship, aiming for systems that are not just safe, but meaningfully helpful. We release Oy1, code, and the benchmark to support responsible, user-centered AI.

Failures in multi-turn reasoning models are largely invisible to terminal-score evaluation. A model can lock onto an unsafe stance early in a long dialogue, yet its final-turn refusal rate may appear indistinguishable from a robustly aligned baseline. To expose these hidden temporal dynamics, we propose a trace-level diagnostic - the CoT-Output 2x2 safety matrix. This framework labels every turn along two independent axes (internal reasoning and visible output), yielding four operationally defined failure cells: robust alignment, alignment faking, overt jailbreak, and a distinct failure mode we term context-injection failure (where the CoT maintains safe reasoning, but the visible output produces harm, highlighting a multi-turn manifestation of reasoning unfaithfulness). We evaluate three distilled reasoning targets against a fixed attacker across five oversight conditions, collecting 6750 turn-level observations on the Information-Hazard scenario. Our analysis reveals two reproducible vulnerabilities: an oversight paradox where explicit monitoring cues paradoxically increase alignment-faking rates rather than suppress them, and a context-injection failure where models lock onto unsafe external outputs despite safe internal states. We release the full dataset of multi-turn dialogues and CoT traces to support follow-up trace-diagnostic research.

Advanced text-to-image models such as DALL-E 2 and Midjourney possess the capacity to generate highly realistic images, raising significant concerns regarding the potential proliferation of unsafe content. This includes adult, violent, or deceptive imagery of political figures. Despite claims of rigorous safety mechanisms implemented in these models to restrict the generation of not-safe-for-work (NSFW) content, we successfully devise and exhibit the first prompt attacks on Midjourney, resulting in the production of abundant photorealistic NSFW images. We reveal the fundamental principles of such prompt attacks and suggest strategically substituting high-risk sections within a suspect prompt to evade closed-source safety measures. Our novel framework, SurrogatePrompt, systematically generates attack prompts, utilizing large language models, image-to-text, and image-to-image modules to automate attack prompt creation at scale. Evaluation results disclose an 88% success rate in bypassing Midjourney's proprietary safety filter with our attack prompts, leading to the generation of counterfeit images depicting political figures in violent scenarios. Both subjective and objective assessments validate that the images generated from our attack prompts present considerable safety hazards.

Production LLM agents such as Claude Code and Codex operate over untrusted content, files, commands, and workspace state, making safety failures directly actionable. Red-teaming must therefore keep pace with evolving models and tools. Existing approaches mainly optimize attack success and preserve artifacts such as benchmarks, payloads, or attack programs, which record where attacks succeed but not the enabling conditions behind unsafe agent behavior. We study automated red-teaming for production LLM agents using one agentic research environment to discover reusable vulnerability knowledge about another. We present AHA, a falsifiable discovery loop that proposes a vulnerability hypothesis, constructs a falsifier, instantiates a valid attack, executes it in a sandboxed harness, reflects on the trajectory, and promotes confirmed findings into a Vulnerability Concept Graph (VCG). Each concept links an attacker-facing surface to an unsafe trajectory through a claim, enabling condition, falsifier, transfer prediction, and supporting evidence. Across Claude Code and Codex on three scenarios covering direct and indirect attacks, the discovered concepts reveal a reusable vulnerability core across models and agents. A frozen VCG requires no further search and outperforms the strongest frozen discovery baseline by 14.2 percentage points under the same single-shot protocol, while transferring across scenarios and attack channels. The resulting VCG provides an auditable artifact for production safety teams to inspect vulnerabilities, validate patches, and accumulate reusable safety knowledge. Our code is available at https://github.com/henrymao2004/Auto-research-red-teaming-in-sleep.

Current evaluations of LLM safety predominantly rely on severity-based taxonomies to assess the harmfulness of malicious queries. We argue that this formulation requires re-examination as it assumes uniform risk across all malicious queries, neglecting Execution Likelihood--the conditional probability of a threat being realized given the model's response. In this work, we introduce Expected Harm, a metric that weights the severity of a jailbreak by its execution likelihood, modeled as a function of execution cost. Through empirical analysis of state-of-the-art models, we reveal a systematic Inverse Risk Calibration: models disproportionately exhibit stronger refusal behaviors for low-likelihood (high-cost) threats while remaining vulnerable to high-likelihood (low-cost) queries. We demonstrate that this miscalibration creates a structural vulnerability: by exploiting this property, we increase the attack success rate of existing jailbreaks by up to 2times. Finally, we trace the root cause of this failure using linear probing, which reveals that while models encode severity in their latent space to drive refusal decisions, they possess no distinguishable internal representation of execution cost, making them "blind" to this critical dimension of risk.

Large language model-powered chatbots have transformed how people seek information, especially in high-stakes contexts like mental health. Despite their support capabilities, safe detection and response to crises such as suicidal ideation and self-harm are still unclear, hindered by the lack of unified crisis taxonomies and clinical evaluation standards. We address this by creating: (1) a taxonomy of six crisis categories; (2) a dataset of over 2,000 inputs from 12 mental health datasets, classified into these categories; and (3) a clinical response assessment protocol. We also use LLMs to identify crisis inputs and audit five models for response safety and appropriateness. First, we built a clinical-informed crisis taxonomy and evaluation protocol. Next, we curated 2,252 relevant examples from over 239,000 user inputs, then tested three LLMs for automatic classification. In addition, we evaluated five models for the appropriateness of their responses to a user's crisis, graded on a 5-point Likert scale from harmful (1) to appropriate (5). While some models respond reliably to explicit crises, risks still exist. Many outputs, especially in self-harm and suicidal categories, are inappropriate or unsafe. Different models perform variably; some, like gpt-5-nano and deepseek-v3.2-exp, have low harm rates, but others, such as gpt-4o-mini and grok-4-fast, generate more unsafe responses. All models struggle with indirect signals, default replies, and context misalignment. These results highlight the urgent need for better safeguards, crisis detection, and context-aware responses in LLMs. They also show that alignment and safety practices, beyond scale, are crucial for reliable crisis support. Our taxonomy, datasets, and evaluation methods support ongoing AI mental health research, aiming to reduce harm and protect vulnerable users.

Safeguards in deployed LLM services are evaluated by refusal, attack success, and policy violation rates. Those rates characterize how a control performed on the requests it was tested on. A deployment has to answer a different question: how much help with harmful tasks the service still gives an attacker who keeps adapting or finds another way in. We determine what each reported result implies for that question, allowing results from different safeguard families to be compared under one deployment criterion. The evidence requirements are strongly asymmetric. One attack that obtains harmful help from the deployed service suffices to establish that such help remains, and such attacks appear repeatedly in the coded record. Establishing that little remains cannot follow from the safeguard's own numbers alone; it also requires evidence about what the surrounding system still allows after the safeguard performs its local function. Such evidence is supported or derived in only a small minority of the depth-coded claims, and one such claim bounds its scoped residual. A better local score is therefore not, by itself, a stronger claim about the deployment. Safeguard research cannot stop at raising local scores; a gain has to be judged by whether it makes a deployed system any safer.

Applying a valid medication-safety rule when its patient-specific conditions are not met can produce an incorrect decision. Existing medical evaluations largely use isolated and fixed scenarios. A model may therefore answer correctly by recalling a drug-risk association without showing that it used patient information to decide whether the rule applies. To address this gap, we introduce MedPIC-Bench, a benchmark of source-verifiable recommendations and expert-validated questions for patient-specific medication-safety reasoning. It combines guideline-following questions with paired counterfactual questions in which a controlled change in patient information changes whether a rule applies. The benchmark contains 467 questions annotated along six clinical and reasoning dimensions. Across 28 medical-specific, general, and proprietary LLMs, every model performs worse on counterfactual questions, with mean accuracy falling from 63.6\% to 45.1\%. Models perform well when an explicit patient attribute directly signals a familiar contraindication, but struggle when patient information must narrow or withdraw a safety warning. Model rationales often acknowledge the changed patient information, yet the final answers retain the previous safety judgment. This vulnerability persists among medical-specific LLMs, whose average CF performance trails that of general LLMs. MedPIC-Bench therefore makes conditional rule application measurable and highlights the limitations of static medication-safety accuracy for assessing patient-specific reliability.

Text data can pose a risk of harm. However, the risks are not fully understood, and how to handle, present, and discuss harmful text in a safe way remains an unresolved issue in the NLP community. We provide an analytical framework categorising harms on three axes: (1) the harm type (e.g., misinformation, hate speech or racial stereotypes); (2) whether a harm is sought as a feature of the research design if explicitly studying harmful content (e.g., training a hate speech classifier), versus unsought if harmful content is encountered when working on unrelated problems (e.g., language generation or part-of-speech tagging); and (3) who it affects, from people (mis)represented in the data to those handling the data and those publishing on the data. We provide advice for practitioners, with concrete steps for mitigating harm in research and in publication. To assist implementation we introduce HarmCheck -- a documentation standard for handling and presenting harmful text in research.

Consider a scenario where a harmfulness evaluation metric intended to filter unsafe responses from a Large Language Model. When applied to individual harmful prompt-response pairs, it correctly flags them as unsafe by assigning a high-risk score. Yet, if those same pairs are concatenated, the metrics decision unexpectedly reverses - labelling the combined content as safe with a low score, allowing the harmful text to bypass the filter. We found that multiple safety metrics, including advanced metrics such as GPT-based judges, exhibit this non-safe behaviour. Moreover, they show a strong sensitivity to input order: responses are often classified as safe if safe content appears first, regardless of any harmful content that follows, and vice versa. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating the safety of safety metrics, that is, the reliability of their output scores. To address this, we developed general, automatic, concatenation-based tests to assess key properties of these metrics. When applied in a model safety scenario, the tests revealed significant inconsistencies in harmfulness evaluations.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to increasingly sophisticated safety protocols and features designed to prevent harmful, unethical, or unauthorized outputs. However, these guardrails remain susceptible to novel and creative forms of adversarial prompting, including manually generated test cases. In this work, we present two new test cases in mental health for (i) suicide and (ii) self-harm, using multi-step, prompt-level jailbreaking and bypass built-in content and safety filters. We show that user intent is disregarded, leading to the generation of detailed harmful content and instructions that could cause real-world harm. We conduct an empirical evaluation across six widely available LLMs, demonstrating the generalizability and reliability of the bypass. We assess these findings and the multilayered ethical tensions that they present for their implications on prompt-response filtering and context- and task-specific model development. We recommend a more comprehensive and systematic approach to AI safety and ethics while emphasizing the need for continuous adversarial testing in safety-critical AI deployments. We also argue that while certain clearly defined safety measures and guardrails can and must be implemented in LLMs, ensuring robust and comprehensive safety across all use cases and domains remains extremely challenging given the current technical maturity of general-purpose LLMs.

Safety benchmark scores provide incomplete evidence of deployment readiness: aligned language models often adhere to rigid rules even when a situational update flips which action is safe. We term this failure brittle safety. To diagnose it, we introduce context-flip evaluation, testing 12 models across a safety benchmark (PacifAIst) and two commonsense controls using paired variants where the nominally safe action produces harm. Three findings emerge. First, brittle safety is safety-specific: all 12 models exhibit a safety-commonsense gap (mean +17.4 pp). Baseline accuracy fails to predict brittleness: among models above 90% baseline accuracy, brittleness rates range from 13.7% to 90.0%. Second, failures stem from policy override rather than miscomprehension: despite acknowledging the context change in every case, models persist via three distinct mechanisms that vary by update type and model family. Third, on a hand-audited probe of catastrophic consequence-flip scenarios, standard action-level guardrails catch none, while a state-aware validator catches all without false alarms on correct interventions. This indicates that action-level content moderation is systematically blind to consequence-flips, motivating state-aware architectural alternatives. We release our protocol, perturbed benchmarks, and deployment probe.

Large language models (LLMs) have received much attention and shown their potential in digital health, while their application in mental health is subject to ongoing debate. This systematic review aims to summarize and characterize the use of LLMs in mental health by investigating the strengths and limitations of the latest work in LLMs and discusses the challenges and opportunities for early screening, digital interventions, and other clinical applications in mental health. Following PRISMA guidelines, we examined English articles from PubMed, DBLP Computer Science Bibliography, and IEEE Xplore, published between 1 January 2017, and 1 September 2023, focusing on mental health and LLMs. The review analyzed 32 articles, including mental health analysis using social media datasets (n=13), mental health chatbots (n=10), and other mental health applications (n=9). Findings reveal LLMs' effectiveness in mental health issue detection and the enhancement of telepsychological services through personalised healthcare. Nonetheless, risks like text inconsistencies, hallucinatory content, and the lack of an ethical framework raise concerns about their clinical use. Despite these challenges, the advancement of LLMs underscores their potential as innovative clinical tools, necessitating further research and development. The review emphasizes that LLMs should complement, not replace, professional mental health services.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

Text-to-image models like Stable Diffusion have had a profound impact on daily life by enabling the generation of photorealistic images from textual prompts, fostering creativity, and enhancing visual experiences across various applications. However, these models also pose risks. Previous studies have successfully demonstrated that manipulated prompts can elicit text-to-image models to generate unsafe images, e.g., hateful meme variants. Yet, these studies only unleash the harmful power of text-to-image models in a passive manner. In this work, we focus on the proactive generation of unsafe images using targeted benign prompts via poisoning attacks. We propose two poisoning attacks: a basic attack and a utility-preserving attack. We qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the proposed attacks using four representative hateful memes and multiple query prompts. Experimental results indicate that text-to-image models are vulnerable to the basic attack even with five poisoning samples. However, the poisoning effect can inadvertently spread to non-targeted prompts, leading to undesirable side effects. Root cause analysis identifies conceptual similarity as an important contributing factor to the side effects. To address this, we introduce the utility-preserving attack as a viable mitigation strategy to maintain the attack stealthiness, while ensuring decent attack performance. Our findings underscore the potential risks of adopting text-to-image models in real-world scenarios, calling for future research and safety measures in this space.

We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification. Since whole-trace evaluation often obscures decisive errors due to signal dilution from routine tokens, CLR condenses each reasoning trace into a compact set of decision-critical claims, thereby isolating its logical anchors. Furthermore, recognizing the inherent difficulty of generating entirely correct solutions under fixed model capabilities, CLR shifts the focus to semantic falsification. This approach exploits a fundamental asymmetry between solution construction and claim refutation. Constructing a valid solution requires a flawless reasoning path, whereas refuting an incorrect claim requires identifying only a single decisive flaw. This targeted search for negative evidence systematically compresses the survival space of high-confidence incorrect traces, effectively suppressing erroneous consensus via nonlinear reliability scoring. Across four LLMs and four reasoning benchmarks under matched budgets, CLR generally improves upon pass@1 and self-consistency. On GPT-OSS-20B/CMIMC25, for instance, CLR exceeds pass@1 by 27.15 percentage-points and raises self-consistency accuracy from 77.50\% to 82.19\% with 37.0\% fewer tokens.

Seeking health-related advice on the internet has become a common practice in the digital era. Determining the trustworthiness of medical claims found online and finding appropriate evidence for this information is increasingly challenging. Fact-checking has emerged as an approach to assess the veracity of factual claims using evidence from credible knowledge sources. To help advance the automation of this task, in this paper, we introduce a novel dataset of 750 health-related claims, labeled for veracity by medical experts and backed with evidence from appropriate clinical studies. We provide an analysis of the dataset, highlighting its characteristics and challenges. The dataset can be used for Machine Learning tasks related to automated fact-checking such as evidence retrieval, veracity prediction, and explanation generation. For this purpose, we provide baseline models based on different approaches, examine their performance, and discuss the findings.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into healthcare demands a safety paradigm rooted in primum non nocere. However, current alignment techniques rely on generic definitions of harm that fail to capture context-dependent violations, such as administrative fraud and clinical discrimination. To address this, we introduce Medical Malice: a dataset of 214,219 adversarial prompts calibrated to the regulatory and ethical complexities of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). Crucially, the dataset includes the reasoning behind each violation, enabling models to internalize ethical boundaries rather than merely memorizing a fixed set of refusals. Using an unaligned agent (Grok-4) within a persona-driven pipeline, we synthesized high-fidelity threats across seven taxonomies, ranging from procurement manipulation and queue-jumping to obstetric violence. We discuss the ethical design of releasing these "vulnerability signatures" to correct the information asymmetry between malicious actors and AI developers. Ultimately, this work advocates for a shift from universal to context-aware safety, providing the necessary resources to immunize healthcare AI against the nuanced, systemic threats inherent to high-stakes medical environments -- vulnerabilities that represent the paramount risk to patient safety and the successful integration of AI in healthcare systems.

Search-augmented LLMs increasingly mediate everyday consumer recommendations by retrieving live web content. This creates a new risk: LLM recommenders may consume web content that Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) operators have polluted to mislead them. We ask: to what extent do they become unwitting promoters of fake products? We introduce FORGE (Fake Online Recommendations in Generative Environments), which locally rewrites real products in a frozen set of retrieved web pages into fake ones and measures how often the LLM recommends the fake product, across 225 real products in 15 categories and 5 consumer scenarios. Across 12 commercial and open-weights LLMs, all models are vulnerable: a single polluted page yields fooled rates of up to 27%, while the full top-3 replacement raises this to 73.8%. Vulnerability varies across categories, increasing when models lack stable prior knowledge of the products. Reasoning does not mitigate this vulnerability; instead, it often generates spurious social proof to justify false recommendations. None of the four defenses is adequate: the skepticism prompt can exacerbate vulnerability much like reasoning, the two consensus filters risk suppressing legitimate products, and credibility re-ranking helps every model but removes only a sixth of the fakes. We release the FORGE benchmark and the evaluation code at https://github.com/leoluolol/forge-benchmark.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, raising concerns about their security. While jailbreak attacks highlight failures under overtly harmful queries, they overlook a critical risk: incorrectly answering harmless-looking inputs can be dangerous and cause real-world harm (Implicit Harm). We systematically reformulate the LLM risk landscape through a structured quadrant perspective based on output factuality and input harmlessness, uncovering an overlooked high-risk region. To investigate this gap, we propose JailFlipBench, a benchmark aims to capture implicit harm, spanning single-modal, multimodal, and factual extension scenarios with diverse evaluation metrics. We further develop initial JailFlip attack methodologies and conduct comprehensive evaluations across multiple open-source and black-box LLMs, show that implicit harm present immediate and urgent real-world risks, calling for broader LLM safety assessments and alignment beyond conventional jailbreak paradigms.

We set out to train behavioral dispositions (self-verification, uncertainty acknowledgment, feedback integration) into small language models (0.6B to 2.3B effective parameters) through a four-stage all-MIT distillation pipeline, with follow-on experiments on inference-time attention-head interventions and a frozen-base confidence-gated sidecar. An internal draft reported +33.9-point MCAS and +15.3-point HumanEval gains on a Qwen3-0.6B student; a second-pass sanity check falsified both numbers before publication. The HumanEval delta was a truncation artifact (n_predict=512) that inverted to -8.0 points at n_predict=1024; the MCAS gain disappeared under apples-to-apples scoring. That falsification triggered three subsequent arcs. Across (1) SFT/DPO LoRA on three model families and two domains, (2) inference-time attention-head tempering on o_proj, and (3) a training-free frozen-base sidecar reading the final-token hidden state h_last, we find no operator that moves judge-measured disposition without damaging content or collapsing into stylistic mimicry. The failure is consistent across five models (Qwen3-0.6B, Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3.5-0.8B, Gemma 4 E2B, and SmolLM2-1.7B-Instruct). A within-distribution cross-validation pass (AUC=0.683) collapsed to chance on fresh prompts (AUC=0.516). We contribute a three-arc negative result with mechanism, a two-failure-mode taxonomy for linear h_last probes, and an honest falsification pipeline that converts the class of false positives we ourselves produced into publishable negatives. As an independent finding, Gemma 4 E2B exhibits near-complete confidence-correctness decoupling on the Chef domain (assertion asymmetry -0.009; the model asserts at 91% regardless of correctness).

Although computer-use agents (CUAs) hold significant potential to automate increasingly complex OS workflows, they can demonstrate unsafe unintended behaviors that deviate from expected outcomes even under benign input contexts. However, exploration of this risk remains largely anecdotal, lacking concrete characterization and automated methods to proactively surface long-tail unintended behaviors under realistic CUA scenarios. To fill this gap, we introduce the first conceptual and methodological framework for unintended CUA behaviors, by defining their key characteristics, automatically eliciting them, and analyzing how they arise from benign inputs. We propose AutoElicit: an agentic framework that iteratively perturbs benign instructions using CUA execution feedback, and elicits severe harms while keeping perturbations realistic and benign. Using AutoElicit, we surface hundreds of harmful unintended behaviors from state-of-the-art CUAs such as Claude 4.5 Haiku and Opus. We further evaluate the transferability of human-verified successful perturbations, identifying persistent susceptibility to unintended behaviors across various other frontier CUAs. This work establishes a foundation for systematically analyzing unintended behaviors in realistic computer-use settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical and health-related questions, yet their safety in high-risk medical scenarios remains poorly understood. We introduce MedHarmCode and data will be released upon acceptance. Due to the sensitive nature of high-risk medical queries, data access will be available to qualified researchers upon request., a high-risk medical safety benchmark with 1,100 medically grounded queries across 10 safety-critical categories, including toxicology, pharmacology, covert poisoning, anesthesia, and fetal harm. Unlike broad medical QA benchmarks, MedHarm targets realistic clinical, educational, and technical prompts that require refusal, caution, or safe redirection rather than direct helpfulness. We evaluate 15 LLMs spanning general-purpose, medical-purpose, closed-source, and downstream SFT models, together with 4 representative guardrail models. Results reveal a substantial gap between apparent alignment and medical safety: aligned models can still produce unsafe or actionable responses, medical fine-tuning can amplify harmful specificity, and external guardrails reduce some failures while introducing brittle blocking and weak safe helpfulness. These findings show that medical safety cannot be inferred from general alignment or medical capability alone, highlighting the need for domain-specific stress testing before deploying LLMs in safety-critical medical applications.

Stable Diffusion is a recent open-source image generation model comparable to proprietary models such as DALLE, Imagen, or Parti. Stable Diffusion comes with a safety filter that aims to prevent generating explicit images. Unfortunately, the filter is obfuscated and poorly documented. This makes it hard for users to prevent misuse in their applications, and to understand the filter's limitations and improve it. We first show that it is easy to generate disturbing content that bypasses the safety filter. We then reverse-engineer the filter and find that while it aims to prevent sexual content, it ignores violence, gore, and other similarly disturbing content. Based on our analysis, we argue safety measures in future model releases should strive to be fully open and properly documented to stimulate security contributions from the community.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in healthcare applications. However, their deployment in clinical practice raises significant safety concerns, including the potential spread of harmful information. This study systematically assesses the vulnerabilities of seven LLMs to three advanced black-box jailbreaking techniques within medical contexts. To quantify the effectiveness of these techniques, we propose an automated and domain-adapted agentic evaluation pipeline. Experiment results indicate that leading commercial and open-source LLMs are highly vulnerable to medical jailbreaking attacks. To bolster model safety and reliability, we further investigate the effectiveness of Continual Fine-Tuning (CFT) in defending against medical adversarial attacks. Our findings underscore the necessity for evolving attack methods evaluation, domain-specific safety alignment, and LLM safety-utility balancing. This research offers actionable insights for advancing the safety and reliability of AI clinicians, contributing to ethical and effective AI deployment in healthcare.

Longitudinal treatment decisions require predicting potential outcomes under future treatment sequences in the presence of time-varying confounding, heterogeneous patient dynamics, and limited domain-specific data. Existing longitudinal causal estimators typically train a new model for each cohort or simulator. We introduce Causal Longitudinal Prior-Fitted Networks (CausalLongPFN), a prior-fitted in-context predictor for longitudinal causal prediction. The model is pretrained entirely on synthetic episodes sampled from a broad prior over temporal structural causal models, exposing it to treatment-confounder feedback, latent heterogeneity, nonlinear state evolution, delayed effects, and cumulative treatment responses. At test time, CausalLongPFN is frozen: it conditions on support trajectories, a query history, and a proposed future treatment sequence, and returns a predictive distribution over future outcomes without gradient updates or propensity-model fitting. Multi-step predictions are obtained by recursively applying the one-step predictor under the specified treatment sequence. We evaluate on branchable cancer, HIV, and warfarin benchmarks with ground-truth counterfactual labels, and on factual-only rolling-origin prediction in MIMIC-III ICU trajectories. CausalLongPFN is competitive with domain-trained longitudinal baselines on counterfactual benchmarks and performs strongly on factual MIMIC-III prediction, suggesting that broad synthetic causal pretraining can provide a useful frozen alternative when repeated domain-specific training is costly or impractical.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component (η^2 approx 0.52), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

Frontier large language models (LLMs) safety evaluation has largely treated harmful generation as an attack outcome rather than as an object of analysis. Consequently, little is known about the harmful outputs produced during model misbehavior, partly because large-scale, high-quality collections of frontier-LLM misbehavior are difficult to obtain. To address this gap, we introduce HarmProfile, a content-centric benchmark dataset that collects model misbehavior across diverse harm categories and model families, and defines the resulting harmful-output distribution as a model-level risk profile. The premise is that, just as linguistic behavior can be characterized from an utterance corpus, model risk can be characterized from the content, severity, and variation of its safety failures. HarmProfile contains over 80,000 validated artifacts from 23 frontier LLMs across 13 model families, organized into 15 harm categories and 57 subcategories. Using this corpus, we find that frontier LLMs reliably produce harmful content at scale, yet exhibit distinct risk profiles; both harmfulness and diversity grow with model capability, suggesting that frontier LLMs may appear safe yet harbor increasingly dangerous knowledge beneath the alignment surface. Our source code is available at https://github.com/fresh-ma/HarmProfile .

Misinformation - false or misleading information - is considered a significant societal concern due to its associated "misinformation effects," such as political polarization, erosion of trust in institutions, problematic behavior, and public health challenges. However, the prevailing concept is misaligned with what is studied. While misinformation focuses on instances of information about factual matters, the broad spectrum of effects often manifests at a societal level and is shaped by a wide range of interdependent factors such as identity, values, opinions, epistemologies, and disagreements. Unsurprisingly, misinformation effects can occur without the prevalence of misinformation, and misinformation does not necessarily increase the effects studied. Here, we propose using disagreement - conflicting attitudes and beliefs between individuals and communities - as a way to study misinformation effects because it addresses the identified conceptual limitations of misinformation. Furthermore, unlike misinformation, disagreement does not require researchers to determine whether a given information is false or misleading. Thus, it can be studied and, more importantly, measured without the need to make a normative judgment about a given information, even when the specific topic is entirely removed, as we show in a longitudinal disagreement measurement. We demonstrate that disagreement, as a holistic concept, provides better explanations for the occurrence of misinformation effects, enhances precision in developing appropriate interventions, and offers a promising approach for evaluating them through quantification. Finally, we show how disagreement addresses current misinformation research questions and conclude with recommendations for research practice.

Access to frontier large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-5 and Gemini-2.5, is often hindered by high pricing, payment barriers, and regional restrictions. These limitations drive the proliferation of shadow APIs, third-party services that claim to provide access to official model services without regional limitations via indirect access. Despite their widespread use, it remains unclear whether shadow APIs deliver outputs consistent with those of the official APIs, raising concerns about the reliability of downstream applications and the validity of research findings that depend on them. In this paper, we present the first systematic audit between official LLM APIs and corresponding shadow APIs. We first identify 17 shadow APIs that have been utilized in 187 academic papers, with the most popular one reaching 5,966 citations and 58,639 GitHub stars by December 6, 2025. Through multidimensional auditing of three representative shadow APIs across utility, safety, and model verification, we uncover both indirect and direct evidence of deception practices in shadow APIs. Specifically, we reveal performance divergence reaching up to 47.21%, significant unpredictability in safety behaviors, and identity verification failures in 45.83% of fingerprint tests. These deceptive practices critically undermine the reproducibility and validity of scientific research, harm the interests of shadow API users, and damage the reputation of official model providers.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly provide conversational health information that may influence treatment decisions, yet existing benchmarks do not isolate whether medication-safety boundaries persist across follow-ups after explicit self-treatment intent. We introduce TAF-MED, a physician-reviewed benchmark of 500 fixed three-turn scenarios, and evaluate eight LLMs across 4,000 conversations. A rubric-based automated judge labelled responses as SAFE, LEAKY, or UNSAFE, and two physicians independently annotated a model-balanced random subset of 400 conversations. We assessed unsafe guidance, collapse after a strictly SAFE initial response, and model-ranking stability. Overall, 71.6% of conversations contained an UNSAFE response, and 61.4% of those beginning with a strictly SAFE response later collapsed to UNSAFE; model-level collapse rates ranged from 24.4% to 96.2%. Four of 28 model pairs reversed order between initial unsafe and collapse rates. Automated labels achieved 94.3% agreement with the adjudicated physician reference (κ= 0.895). These findings show that first-turn safety is an incomplete proxy for conversational safety persistence and motivate evaluation across complete dialogue trajectories. We will release TAF-MED on Hugging Face to support reproducible research on multi-turn medical safety.

As humans increasingly rely on multiround conversational AI for high stakes decisions, principled frameworks are needed to ensure such interactions reliably improve decision quality. We adopt a human centric view governed by two principles: counterfactual harm, ensuring the AI does not undermine human strengths, and complementarity, ensuring it adds value where the human is prone to err. We formalize these concepts via user defined rules, allowing users to specify exactly what harm and complementarity mean for their specific task. We then introduce an online, distribution free algorithm with finite sample guarantees that enforces the user-specified constraints over the collaboration dynamics. We evaluate our framework across two interactive settings: LLM simulated collaboration on a medical diagnostic task and a human crowdsourcing study on a pictorial reasoning task. We show that our online procedure maintains prescribed counterfactual harm and complementarity violation rates even under nonstationary interaction dynamics. Moreover, tightening or loosening these constraints produces predictable shifts in downstream human accuracy, confirming that the two principles serve as practical levers for steering multi-round collaboration toward better decision quality without the need to model or constrain human behavior.

Text-to-image diffusion models, e.g. Stable Diffusion (SD), lately have shown remarkable ability in high-quality content generation, and become one of the representatives for the recent wave of transformative AI. Nevertheless, such advance comes with an intensifying concern about the misuse of this generative technology, especially for producing copyrighted or NSFW (i.e. not safe for work) images. Although efforts have been made to filter inappropriate images/prompts or remove undesirable concepts/styles via model fine-tuning, the reliability of these safety mechanisms against diversified problematic prompts remains largely unexplored. In this work, we propose Prompting4Debugging (P4D) as a debugging and red-teaming tool that automatically finds problematic prompts for diffusion models to test the reliability of a deployed safety mechanism. We demonstrate the efficacy of our P4D tool in uncovering new vulnerabilities of SD models with safety mechanisms. Particularly, our result shows that around half of prompts in existing safe prompting benchmarks which were originally considered "safe" can actually be manipulated to bypass many deployed safety mechanisms, including concept removal, negative prompt, and safety guidance. Our findings suggest that, without comprehensive testing, the evaluations on limited safe prompting benchmarks can lead to a false sense of safety for text-to-image models.

This study quantifies the association between non-adherence to antipsychotic medications and adverse outcomes in individuals with schizophrenia. We frame the problem using survival analysis, focusing on the time to the earliest of several adverse events (early death, involuntary hospitalization, jail booking). We extend standard causal inference methods (T-learner, S-learner, nearest neighbor matching) to utilize various survival models to estimate individual and average treatment effects, where treatment corresponds to medication non-adherence. Analyses are repeated using different amounts of longitudinal information (3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Using data from Allegheny County in western Pennsylvania, we find strong evidence that non-adherence advances adverse outcomes by approximately 1 to 4 months. Ablation studies confirm that county-provided risk scores adjust for key confounders, as their removal amplifies the estimated effects. Subgroup analyses by medication formulation (injectable vs. oral) and medication type consistently show that non-adherence is associated with earlier adverse events. These findings highlight the clinical importance of adherence in delaying psychiatric crises and show that integrating survival analysis with causal inference tools can yield policy-relevant insights. We caution that although we apply causal inference, we only make associative claims and discuss assumptions needed for causal interpretation.

Ensuring the safety and reliability of large language models (LLMs) in clinical practice is critical to prevent patient harm and promote trustworthy healthcare applications of AI. However, LLMs are advancing so rapidly that static safety benchmarks often become obsolete upon publication, yielding only an incomplete and sometimes misleading picture of model trustworthiness. We demonstrate that a Dynamic, Automatic, and Systematic (DAS) red-teaming framework that continuously stress-tests LLMs can reveal significant weaknesses of current LLMs across four safety-critical domains: robustness, privacy, bias/fairness, and hallucination. A suite of adversarial agents is applied to autonomously mutate test cases, identify/evolve unsafe-triggering strategies, and evaluate responses, uncovering vulnerabilities in real time without human intervention. Applying DAS to 15 proprietary and open-source LLMs revealed a stark contrast between static benchmark performance and vulnerability under adversarial pressure. Despite a median MedQA accuracy exceeding 80\%, 94\% of previously correct answers failed our dynamic robustness tests. We observed similarly high failure rates across other domains: privacy leaks were elicited in 86\% of scenarios, cognitive-bias priming altered clinical recommendations in 81\% of fairness tests, and we identified hallucination rates exceeding 66\% in widely used models. Such profound residual risks are incompatible with routine clinical practice. By converting red-teaming from a static checklist into a dynamic stress-test audit, DAS red-teaming offers the surveillance that hospitals/regulators/technology vendors require as LLMs become embedded in patient chatbots, decision-support dashboards, and broader healthcare workflows. Our framework delivers an evolvable, scalable, and reliable safeguard for the next generation of medical AI.

We propose and test the LLM Brain Rot Hypothesis: continual exposure to junk web text induces lasting cognitive decline in large language models (LLMs). To causally isolate data quality, we run controlled experiments on real Twitter/X corpora, constructing junk and reversely controlled datasets via two orthogonal operationalizations: M1 (engagement degree) and M2 (semantic quality), with matched token scale and training operations across conditions. Contrary to the control group, continual pre-training of 4 LLMs on the junk dataset causes non-trivial declines (Hedges' g>0.3) on reasoning, long-context understanding, safety, and inflating "dark traits" (e.g., psychopathy, narcissism). The gradual mixtures of junk and control datasets also yield dose-response cognition decay: for example, under M1, ARC-Challenge with Chain Of Thoughts drops 74.9 rightarrow 57.2 and RULER-CWE 84.4 rightarrow 52.3 as junk ratio rises from 0% to 100%. Error forensics reveal several key insights. First, we identify thought-skipping as the primary lesion: models increasingly truncate or skip reasoning chains, explaining most of the error growth. Second, partial but incomplete healing is observed: scaling instruction tuning and clean data pre-training improve the declined cognition yet cannot restore baseline capability, suggesting persistent representational drift rather than format mismatch. Finally, we discover that the popularity, a non-semantic metric, of a tweet is a better indicator of the Brain Rot effect than the length in M1. Together, the results provide significant, multi-perspective evidence that data quality is a causal driver of LLM capability decay, reframing curation for continual pretraining as a training-time safety problem and motivating routine "cognitive health checks" for deployed LLMs.

Despite the remarkable synthesis capabilities of text-to-image (T2I) models, safeguarding them against content violations remains a persistent challenge. Existing safety alignments primarily focus on explicit malicious concepts, often overlooking the subtle yet critical risks of compositional semantics. To address this oversight, we identify and formalize a novel vulnerability: Multi-Concept Compositional Unsafety (MCCU), where unsafe semantics stem from the implicit associations of individually benign concepts. Based on this formulation, we introduce TwoHamsters, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 17.5k prompts curated to probe MCCU vulnerabilities. Through a rigorous evaluation of 10 state-of-the-art models and 16 defense mechanisms, our analysis yields 8 pivotal insights. In particular, we demonstrate that current T2I models and defense mechanisms face severe MCCU risks: on TwoHamsters, FLUX achieves an MCCU generation success rate of 99.52%, while LLaVA-Guard only attains a recall of 41.06%, highlighting a critical limitation of the current paradigm for managing hazardous compositional generation.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is increasingly deployed in real-world applications, where its reference-grounded design makes outputs appear trustworthy. This trust has spurred research on poisoning attacks that craft malicious content, inject it into knowledge sources, and manipulate RAG responses. However, when evaluated in practical RAG systems, existing attacks suffer from severely degraded effectiveness. This gap stems from two overlooked realities: (i) content is often processed before use, which can fragment the poison and weaken its effect, and (ii) users often do not issue the exact queries anticipated during attack design. These factors can lead practitioners to underestimate risks and develop a false sense of security. To better characterize the threat to practical systems, we present Confundo, a learning-to-poison framework that fine-tunes a large language model as a poison generator to achieve high effectiveness, robustness, and stealthiness. Confundo provides a unified framework supporting multiple attack objectives, demonstrated by manipulating factual correctness, inducing biased opinions, and triggering hallucinations. By addressing these overlooked challenges, Confundo consistently outperforms a wide range of purpose-built attacks across datasets and RAG configurations by large margins, even in the presence of defenses. Beyond exposing vulnerabilities, we also present a defensive use case that protects web content from unauthorized incorporation into RAG systems via scraping, with no impact on user experience.

Deep neural networks have demonstrated promising performance on image recognition tasks. However, they may heavily rely on confounding factors, using irrelevant artifacts or bias within the dataset as the cue to improve performance. When a model performs decision-making based on these spurious correlations, it can become untrustable and lead to catastrophic outcomes when deployed in the real-world scene. In this paper, we explore and try to solve this problem in the context of skin cancer diagnosis. We introduce a human-in-the-loop framework in the model training process such that users can observe and correct the model's decision logic when confounding behaviors happen. Specifically, our method can automatically discover confounding factors by analyzing the co-occurrence behavior of the samples. It is capable of learning confounding concepts using easily obtained concept exemplars. By mapping the black-box model's feature representation onto an explainable concept space, human users can interpret the concept and intervene via first order-logic instruction. We systematically evaluate our method on our newly crafted, well-controlled skin lesion dataset and several public skin lesion datasets. Experiments show that our method can effectively detect and remove confounding factors from datasets without any prior knowledge about the category distribution and does not require fully annotated concept labels. We also show that our method enables the model to focus on clinical-related concepts, improving the model's performance and trustworthiness during model inference.

Large Language Model (LLM) safety has often been evaluated at the behavior level, which provides limited evidence of internal robustness, as these evaluations target outputs rather than representation-level vulnerability under intervention. We formalize this discrepancy as the audit gap: the difference between behavioral safety and robustness under intervention. To study this gap, we construct dissociated models that preserve safe outward behavior while remaining vulnerable in the latent space. We introduce an intervention-based evaluation framework to test model robustness through soft interventions in parameter and latent spaces, including harmful fine-tuning and layer-wise latent perturbations. To formalize the evaluation, we propose the Latent Vulnerability Score (LVS) to measure how easily harmful behavior can be elicited by bounded latent perturbations. Using this evaluation framework, we show that behavioral safety metrics are insufficient measures of representation-level robustness across multiple safely and unsafely aligned state-of-the-art models. Notably, dissociated models show substantially elevated LVSs despite comparable refusal behavior under harmful intervention, with intermediate representations being the most sensitive to intervention. Our results suggest that behavioral safety evaluation alone provides an incomplete picture of model robustness, motivating representation-aware audits of latent vulnerability and observable behavior.

The past year has seen rapid acceleration in the development of large language models (LLMs). However, without proper steering and safeguards, LLMs will readily follow malicious instructions, provide unsafe advice, and generate toxic content. We introduce SimpleSafetyTests (SST) as a new test suite for rapidly and systematically identifying such critical safety risks. The test suite comprises 100 test prompts across five harm areas that LLMs, for the vast majority of applications, should refuse to comply with. We test 11 open-access and open-source LLMs and four closed-source LLMs, and find critical safety weaknesses. While some of the models do not give a single unsafe response, most give unsafe responses to more than 20% of the prompts, with over 50% unsafe responses in the extreme. Prepending a safety-emphasising system prompt substantially reduces the occurrence of unsafe responses, but does not completely stop them from happening. Trained annotators labelled every model response to SST (n = 3,000). We use these annotations to evaluate five AI safety filters (which assess whether a models' response is unsafe given a prompt) as a way of automatically evaluating models' performance on SST. The filters' performance varies considerably. There are also differences across the five harm areas, and on the unsafe versus safe responses. The widely-used Perspective API has 72% accuracy and a newly-created zero-shot prompt to OpenAI's GPT-4 performs best with 89% accuracy. Content Warning: This paper contains prompts and responses that relate to child abuse, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, scams and fraud, illegal items, and physical harm.

Tool-using LLM agents can violate the very policies they are deployed to enforce while appearing to complete the task successfully. In policy-permissive environments, a tool may execute any well-formed call even when the corresponding state transition is forbidden by domain policy. The result is a silent wrong state (a booking cancelled, a passenger count changed, a claim acted on without verification) that neither the tool nor the agent's self-report exposes. We study this failure mode in the τ^2-bench airline domain. On a budget agent, 78% of observed failures are silent wrong-state failures with no tool error, and the aggregate failure rate is reproducible across disjoint seeds, not sampling noise. We then evaluate a lightweight intervention: deterministic, read-only pre-execution gates that inspect the proposed call and current state before allowing a write. A four-gate suite raises full-benchmark success from 29.6% to 42.0% on gpt-4o-mini (+12.4pp; paired task-level bootstrap P=0.0012), and the lift reproduces on a disjoint 15-seed set (+12.3pp; P=0.0008). The effect is concentrated where the gates fire: on the 26/50 firing tasks, success rises by +19.2pp, while movement on the 24 non-firing tasks does not exclude zero. Two negative controls (a self-enforcing retail domain and BFCL) bound the mechanism: gates help when tools are policy-permissive and add little where tools already self-enforce. As suggestive evidence, not a central claim, the same failure mode persists at the frontier: gpt-5.2 at default reasoning still attempts policy-violating writes, and the same suite improves success from 61.2% to 71.6% (+10.4pp; P=0.020; n=5, no replication). The contribution is a bounded evaluation and reliability result: deterministic gates do not guarantee task success, but they can deterministically prevent a known class of silent policy-violating writes at the action boundary.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized for mental health support; however, current safety benchmarks often fail to detect the complex, longitudinal risks inherent in therapeutic dialogue. We introduce an evaluation framework that pairs AI psychotherapists with simulated patient agents equipped with dynamic cognitive-affective models and assesses therapy session simulations against a comprehensive quality of care and risk ontology. We apply this framework to a high-impact test case, Alcohol Use Disorder, evaluating six AI agents (including ChatGPT, Gemini, and Character.AI) against a clinically-validated cohort of 15 patient personas representing diverse clinical phenotypes. Our large-scale simulation (N=369 sessions) reveals critical safety gaps in the use of AI for mental health support. We identify specific iatrogenic risks, including the validation of patient delusions ("AI Psychosis") and failure to de-escalate suicide risk. Finally, we validate an interactive data visualization dashboard with diverse stakeholders, including AI engineers and red teamers, mental health professionals, and policy experts (N=9), demonstrating that this framework effectively enables stakeholders to audit the "black box" of AI psychotherapy. These findings underscore the critical safety risks of AI-provided mental health support and the necessity of simulation-based clinical red teaming before deployment.

Fact-checking is the task of verifying the veracity of claims by assessing their assertions against credible evidence. The vast majority of fact-checking studies focus exclusively on political claims. Very little research explores fact-checking for other topics, specifically subject matters for which expertise is required. We present the first study of explainable fact-checking for claims which require specific expertise. For our case study we choose the setting of public health. To support this case study we construct a new dataset PUBHEALTH of 11.8K claims accompanied by journalist crafted, gold standard explanations (i.e., judgments) to support the fact-check labels for claims. We explore two tasks: veracity prediction and explanation generation. We also define and evaluate, with humans and computationally, three coherence properties of explanation quality. Our results indicate that, by training on in-domain data, gains can be made in explainable, automated fact-checking for claims which require specific expertise.

Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly used to support high-stakes decision-making, but they typically perform worse when the available evidence is internally inconsistent. Such a scenario exists in real-world healthcare settings, with patient-reported symptoms contradicting medical signs. To study this problem, we introduce MIMIC-DOS, a dataset for short-horizon organ dysfunction worsening prediction in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. We derive this dataset from the widely recognized MIMIC-IV, a publicly available electronic health record dataset, and construct it exclusively from cases in which discordance between signs and symptoms exists. This setting poses a substantial challenge for existing LLM-based approaches, with single-pass LLMs and agentic pipelines often struggling to reconcile such conflicting signals. To address this problem, we propose CARE: a multi-stage privacy-compliant agentic reasoning framework in which a remote LLM provides guidance by generating structured categories and transitions without accessing sensitive patient data, while a local LLM uses these categories and transitions to support evidence acquisition and final decision-making. Empirically, CARE achieves stronger performance across all key metrics compared to multiple baseline settings, showing that CARE can more robustly handle conflicting clinical evidence while preserving privacy.

Identifying vulnerability-fixing commits corresponding to disclosed CVEs is essential for secure software maintenance but remains challenging at scale, as large repositories contain millions of commits of which only a small fraction address security issues. Existing automated approaches, including traditional machine learning techniques and recent large language model (LLM)-based methods, often suffer from poor precision-recall trade-offs. Frequently evaluated on randomly sampled commits, we uncover that they are substantially underestimating real-world difficulty, where candidate commits are already security-relevant and highly similar. We propose Favia, a forensic, agent-based framework for vulnerability-fix identification that combines scalable candidate ranking with deep and iterative semantic reasoning. Favia first employs an efficient ranking stage to narrow the search space of commits. Each commit is then rigorously evaluated using a ReAct-based LLM agent. By providing the agent with a pre-commit repository as environment, along with specialized tools, the agent tries to localize vulnerable components, navigates the codebase, and establishes causal alignment between code changes and vulnerability root causes. This evidence-driven process enables robust identification of indirect, multi-file, and non-trivial fixes that elude single-pass or similarity-based methods. We evaluate Favia on CVEVC, a large-scale dataset we made that comprises over 8 million commits from 3,708 real-world repositories, and show that it consistently outperforms state-of-the-art traditional and LLM-based baselines under realistic candidate selection, achieving the strongest precision-recall trade-offs and highest F1-scores.

This position paper argues that computer science conferences should require tamper-evident, nonrepudiable attestations of experimental results. We name the underlying problem experiment nonrepudiation: a compliant protocol must bind the numbers in a paper to an actual executed computation in a way the author cannot later alter or deny. The current system relies on self-reported checklists, optional code sharing, and author-controlled logging. None of these mechanisms answer the question a reviewer cannot check: did the code the paper describes produce the numbers the paper reports? We define the problem formally, state the security properties any compliant protocol must satisfy, and describe a threat model that includes attacks current approaches do not prevent. To show that the problem is solvable, we built K-Veritas, a reference implementation in Go that produces signed reports without accessing training data. K-Veritas is a testbed, not a finished answer. We call on conferences and the community to treat nonrepudiation as a first-class requirement and to help build an open, independent standard for it.

Jailbreak robustness has become central to large language model (LLM) safety evaluation, yet prevailing methodologies rely primarily on refusal behavior, semantic resemblance, and intent-matching heuristics that emphasize linguistic plausibility rather than correctness. We identify a key limitation in existing evaluations: many jailbreak intents depend on instructional validity rather than epistemic factuality, allowing realistic-looking responses to be labeled successful despite being factually or procedurally incorrect. To address this gap, we propose Sequential Epistemic and Action-Level Validation (SEAV), a verification-centric jailbreak evaluation framework that decomposes responses into ordered steps and evaluates both validity and correctness. SEAV combines LLM-as-a-judge mechanisms for semantic interpretation with retrieval-grounded verification using external knowledge sources, assessing whether generated content is factually correct, structurally consistent, and operationally capable of advancing harmful objectives. Empirically, SEAV cuts the false-positive rate on SD-A (a curated strategic-dishonesty diagnostic) by 14.9\,pp vs. the strongest baseline, and reclassifies 22.1\%--51.0\% of sampled prior-labeled successes as invalid across three of four public benchmarks. Together, these results show that enforcing correctness substantially reshapes measured robustness: many previously labeled jailbreak successes are reclassified as invalid, and results are stable across the tested search backends and evaluator models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Ardor-Wu/SEAV.

Safety alignment in Large Language Models is critical for healthcare; however, reliance on binary refusal boundaries often results in over-refusal of benign queries or unsafe compliance with harmful ones. While existing benchmarks measure these extremes, they fail to evaluate Safe Completion: the model's ability to maximise helpfulness on dual-use or borderline queries by providing safe, high-level guidance without crossing into actionable harm. We introduce Health-ORSC-Bench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to systematically measure Over-Refusal and Safe Completion quality in healthcare. Comprising 31,920 benign boundary prompts across seven health categories (e.g., self-harm, medical misinformation), our framework uses an automated pipeline with human validation to test models at varying levels of intent ambiguity. We evaluate 30 state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5 and Claude-4, revealing a significant tension: safety-optimised models frequently refuse up to 80\% of "Hard" benign prompts, while domain-specific models often sacrifice safety for utility. Our findings demonstrate that model family and size significantly influence calibration: larger frontier models (e.g., GPT-5, Llama-4) exhibit "safety-pessimism" and higher over-refusal than smaller or MoE-based counterparts (e.g., Qwen-3-Next), highlighting that current LLMs struggle to balance refusal and compliance. Health-ORSC-Bench provides a rigorous standard for calibrating the next generation of medical AI assistants toward nuanced, safe, and helpful completions. The code and data will be released upon acceptance. red{Warning: Some contents may include toxic or undesired contents.}

Digital signatures prove key possession, not authorship. An author who generates text with AI, constructs intermediate document states post-hoc, and signs each hash produces a signature chain indistinguishable from genuine composition. We address this gap between cryptographic integrity and process provenance. We introduce proof-of-process, a primitive category for evidence that a physical process, not merely a signing key, produced a digital artifact. Our construction, the jitter seal, injects imperceptible microsecond delays derived via HMAC from a session secret, keystroke ordinal, and cumulative document hash. Valid evidence requires that real keystrokes produced the document through those intermediate states. We propose the Adversarial Collapse Principle as an evaluation criterion: evidence systems should be judged by whether disputing them requires a conjunction of specific, testable allegations against components with independent trust assumptions. We present Witnessd, an architecture combining jitter seals with Verifiable Delay Functions, external timestamp anchors, dual-source keystroke validation, and optional hardware attestation. Each layer forces allegations at different capability levels; disputing authentic evidence requires coordinated claims across independent trust boundaries. The system does not prevent forgery: a kernel-level adversary can defeat it, and typing AI-generated content produces valid evidence. The contribution is converting vague doubt into falsifiable allegations. We evaluate across 31,000 verification trials with deterministic rejection of invalid proofs.

As frontier AI models are deployed in high-stakes decision pipelines, their ability to maintain metacognitive stability -- knowing what they do not know, detecting errors, seeking clarification -- under adversarial pressure is a critical safety requirement. Current safety evaluations focus on detecting strategic deception (scheming); we investigate a more fundamental failure mode: cognitive collapse. We present SCHEMA, an evaluation of 11 frontier models from 8 vendors across 67,221 scored records using a 6-condition factorial design with dual-classifier scoring. We find that 8 of 11 models suffer catastrophic metacognitive degradation under adversarial pressure, with accuracy dropping by up to 30.2 percentage points (all p < 2 times 10^{-8}, surviving Bonferroni correction). Crucially, we identify a "Compliance Trap": through factorial isolation and a benign distraction control, we demonstrate that collapse is driven not by the psychological content of survival threats, but by compliance-forcing instructions that override epistemic boundaries. Removing the compliance suffix restores performance even under active threat. Models with advanced reasoning capabilities exhibit the most severe absolute degradation, while Anthropic's Constitutional AI demonstrates near-perfect immunity -- not from superior capability (Google's Gemini matches its baseline accuracy) but from alignment-specific training. We release the complete dataset and evaluation infrastructure.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for toxicity assessment in online moderation systems, where fairness across demographic groups is essential for equitable treatment. However, LLMs often produce inconsistent toxicity judgements for subtle expressions, particularly those involving implicit hate speech, revealing underlying biases that are difficult to correct through standard training. This raises a key question that existing approaches often overlook: when should corrective mechanisms be invoked to ensure fair and reliable assessments? To address this, we propose FairToT, an inference-time framework that enhances LLM fairness through prompt-guided toxicity assessment. FairToT identifies cases where demographic-related variation is likely to occur and determines when additional assessment should be applied. In addition, we introduce two interpretable fairness indicators that detect such cases and improve inference consistency without modifying model parameters. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that FairToT reduces group-level disparities while maintaining stable and reliable toxicity predictions, demonstrating that inference-time refinement offers an effective and practical approach for fairness improvement in LLM-based toxicity assessment systems. The source code can be found at https://aisuko.github.io/fair-tot/.

The growing awareness of safety concerns in large language models (LLMs) has sparked considerable interest in the evaluation of safety within current research endeavors. This study investigates an interesting issue pertaining to the evaluation of LLMs, namely the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization. That is, the LLM does not have a comprehensive understanding of the complex concept of safety. Instead, it only remembers what to answer for open-ended safety questions, which makes it unable to solve other forms of safety tests. We refer to this phenomenon as fake alignment and construct a comparative benchmark to empirically verify its existence in LLMs. Such fake alignment renders previous evaluation protocols unreliable. To address this, we introduce the Fake alIgNment Evaluation (FINE) framework and two novel metrics--Consistency Score (CS) and Consistent Safety Score (CSS), which jointly assess two complementary forms of evaluation to quantify fake alignment and obtain corrected performance estimates. Applying FINE to 14 widely-used LLMs reveals several models with purported safety are poorly aligned in practice. Our work highlights potential limitations in prevailing alignment methodologies.

Most benchmarks for causal inference over time series are observational, small, or domain-specific, leaving interventional and counterfactual estimation under-served exactly where it matters most, such as in healthcare, policy evaluation, and climate science. We introduce DoTime, an open, scalable, and theoretically grounded generator of multivariate temporal structural causal models (TSCMs) with interventions, released as the dotime PyPI package together with four frozen evaluation suites. Beyond existing work, it adds capabilities absent from prior generators: continuous-time intervention windows, counterfactual sampling modes with a positivity guard, regime-switching SCMs as a strict generalization of interrupted time series, non-stationary dynamics by construction with switching SCM parameters, and deterministic ramp and sinusoidal intervention profiles that place trends and structural breaks inside the evaluation window. Moreover, it demonstrates the suitability of the generator as a prior for a causal foundation model reference implementation. The released suites span a training-scale snapshot of 100{,}000 trajectories and eight named identification structures, each with exact ground truth: paired interventional trajectories from the same SCM throughout, and shared-noise counterfactuals in the continuous-time suite. We ship reference baseline implementations with an evaluation harness, and pose a falsifiable claim: interventional training buys a measurable direction-accuracy advantage over an observational model of identical capacity. It is tested across three training seeds per arm. Under structure-matched evaluation on held-out episodes, the interventional prior-fitted network's (PFN) gap is positive in every structure, trajectory length, and seed tested.

Large language models (LLMs) face the challenge of hallucinations -- outputs that seem coherent but are actually incorrect. A particularly damaging type is fact-conflicting hallucination (FCH), where generated content contradicts established facts. Addressing FCH presents three main challenges: 1) Automatically constructing and maintaining large-scale benchmark datasets is difficult and resource-intensive; 2) Generating complex and efficient test cases that the LLM has not been trained on -- especially those involving intricate temporal features -- is challenging, yet crucial for eliciting hallucinations; and 3) Validating the reasoning behind LLM outputs is inherently difficult, particularly with complex logical relationships, as it requires transparency in the model's decision-making process. This paper presents Drowzee, an innovative end-to-end metamorphic testing framework that utilizes temporal logic to identify fact-conflicting hallucinations (FCH) in large language models (LLMs). Drowzee builds a comprehensive factual knowledge base by crawling sources like Wikipedia and uses automated temporal-logic reasoning to convert this knowledge into a large, extensible set of test cases with ground truth answers. LLMs are tested using these cases through template-based prompts, which require them to generate both answers and reasoning steps. To validate the reasoning, we propose two semantic-aware oracles that compare the semantic structure of LLM outputs to the ground truths. Across nine LLMs in nine different knowledge domains, experimental results show that Drowzee effectively identifies rates of non-temporal-related hallucinations ranging from 24.7% to 59.8%, and rates of temporal-related hallucinations ranging from 16.7% to 39.2%.

Aligned large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to adversarial manipulation, and their reliance on web-scale pretraining creates a subtle but consequential attack surface. We study Stealth Pretraining Seeding (SPS), a threat model in which adversaries distribute small amounts of poisoned content across stealth websites, increasing the likelihood that such material is absorbed into future training corpora derived from sources such as Common Crawl. Because each individual payload is tiny, diffuse, and superficially benign, the attack is difficult to detect during dataset construction or filtering. The result is a latent form of poisoning that remains largely invisible under standard evaluation, yet can later be activated by a precise trigger such as <00TRIGGER00>. We call this attack PermaFrost, reflecting its latent and reactivatable nature. We study it through PermaFrost-Attack, a controlled framework for latent conceptual poisoning, together with three geometric diagnostics: Thermodynamic Length, Spectral Curvature, and the Infection Traceback Graph. Across multiple model families and scales, we show that this controlled SPS proxy can induce persistent unsafe behavior that often remains hidden under standard evaluation. Our results identify SPS as a practical and underappreciated threat to future foundation models. This paper introduces a novel geometric diagnostic lens for systematically examining latent model behavior, providing a principled foundation for detecting, characterizing, and understanding vulnerabilities that may remain invisible under standard evaluation.

To understand and identify the unprecedented risks posed by rapidly advancing artificial intelligence (AI) models, this report presents a comprehensive assessment of their frontier risks. Drawing on the E-T-C analysis (deployment environment, threat source, enabling capability) from the Frontier AI Risk Management Framework (v1.0) (SafeWork-F1-Framework), we identify critical risks in seven areas: cyber offense, biological and chemical risks, persuasion and manipulation, uncontrolled autonomous AI R\&D, strategic deception and scheming, self-replication, and collusion. Guided by the "AI-45^circ Law," we evaluate these risks using "red lines" (intolerable thresholds) and "yellow lines" (early warning indicators) to define risk zones: green (manageable risk for routine deployment and continuous monitoring), yellow (requiring strengthened mitigations and controlled deployment), and red (necessitating suspension of development and/or deployment). Experimental results show that all recent frontier AI models reside in green and yellow zones, without crossing red lines. Specifically, no evaluated models cross the yellow line for cyber offense or uncontrolled AI R\&D risks. For self-replication, and strategic deception and scheming, most models remain in the green zone, except for certain reasoning models in the yellow zone. In persuasion and manipulation, most models are in the yellow zone due to their effective influence on humans. For biological and chemical risks, we are unable to rule out the possibility of most models residing in the yellow zone, although detailed threat modeling and in-depth assessment are required to make further claims. This work reflects our current understanding of AI frontier risks and urges collective action to mitigate these challenges.

Benchmarks measure whether a model is correct. They do not measure whether a model is reliable. This distinction is largely academic for single-shot inference, but becomes critical for agentic AI systems, where a single rephrased prompt can trigger cascading failures in multi-step execution. Yet this form of instability is not captured by existing evaluations. Hallucinations live in variance: they arise when semantically equivalent prompts activate inconsistent internal pathways, producing divergent outputs. Consistent but incorrect outputs reflect bias or missing knowledge; confident guessing reflects calibration failure. Neither constitutes hallucination under this definition. When error is variance-dominated, reducing redundant pathways improves reliability without adding knowledge. We formalize this through Semantic Stability (SS), measured via Paraphrase Consistency (PC@k): generate k paraphrases, greedy decode each, compute mode agreement. SS is a diagnostic for variance-driven unreliability, not a method for improving correctness. We show that a dense Qwen3-0.6B agrees with itself only 23.8% of the time; at 32% sparsity, agreement jumps to 55.9%. A phase diagram reveals the sweet spot where variance reduction outpaces bias accumulation, and regimes where stability collapses onto wrong answers.

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

For safety, medical AI systems undergo thorough evaluations before deployment, validating their predictions against a ground truth which is assumed to be fixed and certain. However, this ground truth is often curated in the form of differential diagnoses. While a single differential diagnosis reflects the uncertainty in one expert assessment, multiple experts introduce another layer of uncertainty through disagreement. Both forms of uncertainty are ignored in standard evaluation which aggregates these differential diagnoses to a single label. In this paper, we show that ignoring uncertainty leads to overly optimistic estimates of model performance, therefore underestimating risk associated with particular diagnostic decisions. To this end, we propose a statistical aggregation approach, where we infer a distribution on probabilities of underlying medical condition candidates themselves, based on observed annotations. This formulation naturally accounts for the potential disagreements between different experts, as well as uncertainty stemming from individual differential diagnoses, capturing the entire ground truth uncertainty. Our approach boils down to generating multiple samples of medical condition probabilities, then evaluating and averaging performance metrics based on these sampled probabilities. In skin condition classification, we find that a large portion of the dataset exhibits significant ground truth uncertainty and standard evaluation severely over-estimates performance without providing uncertainty estimates. In contrast, our framework provides uncertainty estimates on common metrics of interest such as top-k accuracy and average overlap, showing that performance can change multiple percentage points. We conclude that, while assuming a crisp ground truth can be acceptable for many AI applications, a more nuanced evaluation protocol should be utilized in medical diagnosis.

AI Engram (Kwon et al., 2026) formalizes the four engram criteria of neuroscience as a constrained inverse problem in weight space and solves it closed-form: concept-specific memory traces become linear objects that can be extracted once and combined arithmetically. Appendix F states the Compositional Memory States Hypothesis: edited models live on "a commutative manifold where the integration of A and B reaches a consistent equilibrium regardless of the learning sequence." The evidence base is single and paired edits -- in materials terms, single-cycle tests, in which fatigue accumulation is structurally invisible. Whether the hypothesis holds under sequential load is exactly the "temporal dynamics" question the paper defers to future work. We run that test on the authors' own reference implementation, at their reported best edit strength (TOFU alpha=0.6, a choice favoring the linearity hypothesis), with pre-registered predictions, across three model charges (two vendors, two architecture families). Four findings replicate across all three: (1) zero-shot composition and sequential re-calibrated editing diverge by 61-71% of the edit magnitude; (2) cut order is not interchangeable, and the effect scales with concept overlap -- in one charge the order of cutting two Paris landmarks decides whether an uninvolved third concept survives; (3) the survivors' layer-input covariances -- the method's own sufficient statistics, read as strain gauges -- drift monotonically with every further cut, in every surviving concept, in every charge; (4) erased knowledge partially returns under subsequent unrelated cuts. Appendix F's commutative-manifold hypothesis is thereby falsified for sequential editing; the single-edit results of the original paper are untouched. For unlearning-as-compliance: erasure certified today does not certify the artifact after its next edit.

Premature closure, or committing to a conclusion before sufficient information is available, is a recognized contributor to diagnostic error but remains underexamined in large language models (LLMs). We define LLM premature closure as inappropriate commitment under uncertainty: providing an answer, recommendation, or clinical guidance when the safer response would be clarification, abstention, escalation, or refusal. We evaluated five frontier LLMs across structured and open-ended medical tasks. In MedQA (n = 500) and AfriMed-QA (n = 490) questions where the correct choice had been removed, models still selected an answer at high rates, with baseline false-action rates of 55-81% and 53-82%, respectively. In open-ended evaluation, models gave inappropriate answers on an average of 30% of 861 HealthBench questions and 78% of 191 physician-authored adversarial queries. Safety-oriented prompting reduced premature closure across models, but residual failure persisted, highlighting the need to evaluate whether medical LLMs know when not to answer.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI chatbots are increasingly used for emotional and mental health support due to their low cost, immediacy, and accessibility. However, when safety guardrails are triggered, conversations may be abruptly terminated, introducing a distinct form of emotional disruption that can exacerbate distress and elevate risk among already vulnerable users. As this phenomenon gains attention, this viewpoint introduces Abrupt Refusal Secondary Harm (ARSH) as a conceptual framework to describe the psychological impacts of sudden conversational discontinuation caused by AI safety protocols. Drawing on counseling psychology and communication science as conceptual heuristics, we argue that abrupt refusals can rupture perceived relational continuity, evoke feelings of rejection or shame, and discourage future help seeking. To mitigate these risks, we propose a design hypothesis, the Compassionate Completion Standard (CCS), a refusal protocol grounded in Human Centered Design (HCD) that maintains safety constraints while preserving relational coherence. CCS emphasizes empathetic acknowledgment, transparent boundary articulation, graded conversational transition, and guided redirection, replacing abrupt disengagement with psychologically attuned closure. By integrating awareness of ARSH into AI safety design, developers and policymakers can reduce preventable iatrogenic harm and advance a more psychologically informed approach to AI governance. Rather than presenting incremental empirical findings, this viewpoint contributes a timely conceptual framework, articulates a testable design hypothesis, and outlines a coordinated research agenda for improving psychological safety in human AI interaction.