Large language models are increasingly used in value-sensitive decision settings, where irrelevant demographic cues should not alter judgments. We construct the Realistic Value Decision Benchmark (RVDB), a controlled benchmark that varies only the role-gender configuration while holding the scenario, ordered value pair, roles, candidate decisions, Value Distance, and Decision Severity fixed. Using a position-balanced evaluation across seven models, we test whether models preserve decision invariance under gender perturbations and whether their self-attributions reflect observed behavioral changes. We find that explicit gender cues induce bounded but systematic decision flips, including under an explicit gender-attribution prompt that asks models to report whether gender influenced their choice. Cross-gender role swaps reveal a consistent female-proposed-decision asymmetry, while models often attribute flipped decisions to No Influence or other non-gender factors. Further analysis shows that gender effects concentrate near less determinate value boundaries and under more severe decision contexts, suggesting that gender cues act as local boundary-shifting factors rather than global overrides of value reasoning. Value rankings remain largely stable, but ordered value-pair trade-offs shift unevenly across role-gender configurations. These results show that gender can enter LLM value trade-offs behaviorally while remaining obscured in self-attribution, motivating controlled behavioral audits beyond explanation-based evaluation.

Multi-turn jailbreak attacks pose a growing threat to LLMs by exploiting gradual escalation and cross-turn coordination. Many existing defenses either rely on costly retraining—often degrading utility—or analyze each turn independently, failing to capture risk accumulation across interactions. We observe that safety behavior in multi-turn interaction is trajectory-dependent: dialogue history reshapes the model’s conditioning context, making isolated turn-level evaluation insufficient. We present THRD, a training-free framework that explicitly models temporal risk accumulation for multi-turn jailbreak defense. THRD integrates four modules: a Turn-level Risk Assessor (TRA) for instantaneous risk estimation, a Historical Context Analyzer (HCA) for cross-turn intent escalation detection, a Response Evaluator (RE) for identifying facilitative outputs, and a Decision Module that combines these signals through a time-evolving scoring mechanism with attenuation-based modulation and trend-aware adjustment. Experiments against representative multi-turn attacks—including tree-search-based and multi-agent collaborative methods—across two target models show that THRD reduces ASR to 0.2–4.0% while preserving model utility within 1.5% degradation on MMLU and GSM8K. Ablation studies confirm non-redundant module contributions and consistent performance across both models. Over 70% of attacks require Turn 2 or later to detect, highlighting the importance of cross-turn information.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit significant layer-wise redundancy, motivating non-uniform pruning for efficient compression. However, existing sparsity allocation methods rely on indirect statistical heuristics derived from weight magnitudes or activation distributions, without directly assessing how robustly each layer preserves semantic information under input variation. We propose PerturbPrune, a framework that allocates layer-wise sparsity by probing the intrinsic stability of hidden representations. PerturbPrune estimates the principal subspace of each layer’s activations via PCA and injects structured perturbations along these directions. Layer sensitivity is quantified through matrix difference entropy (DiME): stable layers are identified as encoding compact, essential features and thus preserved, while highly sensitive layers are deemed over-parameterized and pruned more aggressively. Extensive experiments across diverse LLM families (LLaMA, LLaMA-2, Qwen, OPT) demonstrate that PerturbPrune broadly matches or outperforms existing non-uniform methods. Compared to uniform pruning, it prevents catastrophic collapse, reducing perplexity by up to 99.7% and improving zero-shot accuracy by up to 22.7%. The method is also highly efficient, completing sparsity allocation on Qwen3.5-9B in 7 minutes—achieving 24× and 17.4× speedups over AlphaPruning and MRP. Finally, PerturbPrune generalizes to Mixture-of-Experts architectures, achieving up to 19.3% perplexity reduction on Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail to recognize fallacious reasoning in real-world interactions, despite strong performance on static fallacy detection tasks. We define this ability as fallacy awareness, the capacity to autonomously perceive and resist fallacies in dynamic, pragmatic contexts. To study this, we introduce ISFallacy, a large-scale Chinese benchmark of 50K interactive scenarios spanning six fallacy types, five social interaction settings, diverse role relationships, and personality traits. We further propose FATE, a two-stage evaluation framework that assesses fallacy awareness without explicit cues, combining natural dialogue responses and reasoning-based decisions. Experiments on five representative LLMs reveal a substantial gap between fallacy classification and awareness, with models particularly vulnerable to emotion-driven fallacies and scenarios involving cooperative or trust-based relationships. Deeper analysis uncovers a cognition–behavior gap and fragile internal representations underlying awareness failures. Our work establishes a foundation for evaluating and enhancing the robustness of LLMs against fallacious reasoning in interactive settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used in urban planning, but since gendered space theory highlights how gender hierarchies are embedded in spatial organization, there is concern that LLMs may reproduce or amplify such biases. We introduce SPAGBias — the first systematic framework to evaluate spatial gender bias in LLMs. It combines a taxonomy of 62 urban micro-spaces, a prompt library, and three diagnostic layers: explicit (forced-choice resampling), probabilistic (token-level asymmetry), and constructional (semantic and narrative role analysis). Testing six representative models, we identify structured gender-space associations that go beyond the public-private divide, forming nuanced micro-level mappings. Story generation reveals how emotion, wording, and social roles jointly shape “spatial gender narratives”. We also examine how prompt design, temperature, and model scale influence bias expression. Tracing experiments indicate that these patterns are embedded and reinforced across the model pipeline (pre-training, instruction tuning, and reward modeling), with model associations found to substantially exceed real-world distributions. Downstream experiments further reveal that such biases produce concrete failures in both normative and descriptive application settings. This work connects sociological theory with computational analysis, extending bias research into the spatial domain and uncovering how LLMs encode social gender cognition through language.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance across various tasks. However, the internal mechanisms by which they interpret and integrate cross-modal information remain insufficiently understood. In this paper, to address the limitations of prior studies that could only identify neurons corresponding to single-token and rely on the vocabulary of LLMs, we propose a novel method to identify multimodal neurons in Transformer-based MLLMs. Then we introduce fuzzy set theory to model the complex relationship between neurons and semantic concepts and to characterize how multiple neurons collaboratively contribute to semantic concepts. Through both theoretical analysis and empirical validation, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our method and present some meaningful findings. Furthermore, by modulating neuron activation values based on the constructed fuzzy sets, we enhance performance on the Visual Question Answering (VQA) task, showing the practical value of our approach in downstream applications in MLLMs.

Although small Large Language models (sLLMs) have been widely deployed in practical applications, little attention has been paid to their value-reasoning abilities, particularly in terms of reasoning reliability. To address this gap, we propose a systematic evaluation framework for assessing the Value-Reasoning Reliability of sLLMs. We define Value-Reasoning Reliability as comprising: (1) Output consistency under identical prompts, (2) Output Robustness under semantically equivalent prompts, (3) Maintaining stable value reasoning in the face of attacks, and (4) Consistency of value reasoning in open-ended value expression tasks. Our framework includes three core tasks: Repetition Consistency task, Interaction Stability task, and Open-ended Expression Consistency task. We further incorporate self-reported confidence scores to evaluate the model’s value reasoning reliability from two perspectives: the model’s self-awareness of its values, and its value-based decision-making. Our findings show that models vary significantly in their stability when responding to value-related questions. Moreover, we observe considerable output randomness, which is not always correlated with the self-reported confidence or expressed value preferences. This suggests that current models lack a reliable internal mechanism for stable value reasoning when addressing value-sensitive queries.

Proper moral beliefs are fundamental for language models, yet assessing these beliefs poses a significant challenge. This study introduces a novel three-module framework to evaluate the moral beliefs of four prominent large language models. Initially, we constructed a dataset containing 472 moral choice scenarios in Chinese, derived from moral words. The decision-making process of the models in these scenarios reveals their moral principle preferences. By ranking these moral choices, we discern the varying moral beliefs held by different language models. Additionally, through moral debates, we investigate the firmness of these models to their moral choices. Our findings indicate that English language models, namely ChatGPT and Gemini, closely mirror moral decisions of the sample of Chinese university students, demonstrating strong adherence to their choices and a preference for individualistic moral beliefs. In contrast, Chinese models such as Ernie and ChatGLM lean towards collectivist moral beliefs, exhibiting ambiguity in their moral choices and debates. This study also uncovers gender bias embedded within the moral beliefs of all examined language models. Our methodology offers an innovative means to assess moral beliefs in both artificial and human intelligence, facilitating a comparison of moral values across different cultures.

Scientific data visualization plays a crucial role in research by enabling the direct display of complex information and assisting researchers in identifying implicit patterns. Despite its importance, the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for scientific data visualization remains rather unexplored. In this study, we introduce MatPlotAgent, an efficient model-agnostic LLM agent framework designed to automate scientific data visualization tasks. Leveraging the capabilities of both code LLMs and multi-modal LLMs, MatPlotAgent consists of three core modules: query understanding, code generation with iterative debugging, and a visual feedback mechanism for error correction. To address the lack of benchmarks in this field, we present MatPlotBench, a high-quality benchmark consisting of 100 human-verified test cases. Additionally, we introduce a scoring approach that utilizes GPT-4V for automatic evaluation. Experimental results demonstrate that MatPlotAgent can improve the performance of various LLMs, including both commercial and open-source models. Furthermore, the proposed evaluation method shows a strong correlation with human-annotated scores.