Natural-language tasking of embodied agents is rarely just goal specification: users also impose constraints that must persist while the world changes. Code-generating LLM agents can produce plausible behaviors for such instructions, but their free-form programs provide no stable object to verify, compose with new constraints, or repair from a failing trace. We present CEDAR, a counterexample-guided framework that grounds instructions as regular languages over environment event traces. CEDAR uses a language model for semantic judgments and execution traces for correction, then represents both skills and specifications as deterministic finite automata. This turns constraints into executable finite-state objects: a learned skill can be intersected with a learned sleep at night or stay in this biome specification, yielding a controller that enforces the learned constraint by construction rather than by repeated prompting. In Minecraft, with the same simulator/API observations available to a program-generating baseline, CEDAR maintains temporal and spatial constraints that the baseline fails to preserve and amortizes reuse of learned skills, reducing cumulative LLM queries. These results suggest that regular languages offer a practical verification layer between natural-language instructions and embodied-agent policies.

Instruction-tuned LLMs are increasingly converted into reasoning models through post-training to improve multi-step task performance. This conversion is usually optimized for reasoning accuracy, without explicitly preserving the instruction-tuned model’s alignment behavior, such as safe refusal, bias avoidance, and privacy protection. We ask: does this conversion preserve alignment? We study this question through a trustworthiness audit and find that it is not behavior-preserving by default. For a systematic analysis, we compare reasoning models produced via supervised fine-tuning, RL-based post-training, and distillation against matched instruction-tuned baselines across six trustworthiness dimensions: safety, toxicity, stereotyping and bias, machine ethics, privacy, and out-of-distribution robustness. We observe that reasoning models often improve on mathematical reasoning benchmarks but exhibit alignment regressions, including increased toxicity, amplified stereotyping, miscalibrated refusal, and contextual privacy leakage. These regressions are consistent with behavioral drift from the instruction-tuned baseline, measured by KL divergence. Our results show that reasoning-model releases should report trustworthiness metrics alongside capability gains.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting makes language models write step-by-step explanations, but these steps may not match what the model actually used to choose its answer. Existing faithfulness checks often only test whether changing the written chain changes the answer, without verifying whether the steps are truly supported by the given evidence, or they require special prompts that do not generalize well. We present NSF-CoT, a neuro-symbolic formal verification method that checks CoT faithfulness step by step for contextual question answering. NSF-CoT (1) converts the provided context facts and each reasoning step into simple logical statements, (2) uses counterfactual attribution to estimate which context facts the model relied on while generating each step, and (3) verifies each step using a hybrid checker that combines an SMT solver with an LLM-based entailment judge. For every step, we score groundedness (supported by the full context), validity (supported by the facts the model relied on), and utility (helps reach the final answer), and combine them into a faithfulness score. Across OpenBookQA, QASC, and HotpotQA, NSF-CoT consistently outperforms causal mediation, perturbation probes, and behavioral monitoring, and it identifies reasoning steps that are not only unfaithful but also harmful to the model’s final decision.

Hierarchical Instruction Following (HIF) refers to the problem of prompting large language models with a priority-ordered stack of instructions. Standard methods like RLHF and DPO typically fail in this problem since they mainly optimize for a single objective, failing to explicitly enforce system prompt compliance. Meanwhile, supervised fine-tuning relies on mimicking filtered, compliant data, which fails to establish the priority asymmetry at the algorithmic level. In this paper, we introduce HIPO, a novel alignment framework that formulates HIF as a Constrained Markov Decision Process. HIPO elevates system prompts from mere input context to strict algorithmic boundaries. Using a primal-dual safe reinforcement learning approach, the algorithm dynamically enforces system prompt compliance as an explicit constraint, maximizing user utility strictly within this feasible region. Extensive evaluations across diverse model architectures (e.g., Qwen, Phi, Llama) demonstrate that HIPO significantly improves both system compliance and user utility. Furthermore, mechanistic analysis reveals that this constrained optimization autonomously drives the model to shift its attention toward long-range system tokens, providing a principled foundation for reliable LLM deployment in complex workflows.