Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit covert psychological manipulation in complex human-AI interactions has garnered increasing safety concerns. However, existing AI safety benchmarks remain largely restricted to explicit rule compliance and static prompts, failing to capture the dynamic and covert nature of manipulative strategies in multi-turn dialogues. We introduce CogManip, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates 15 manipulation strategy risks across 1,000 multi-turn interaction scenarios, validated by human experts. A systematic evaluation of 13 representative models, including frontier models like GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek-V3.2, reveals significant risk heterogeneities and illuminates the targeted direction for future defense. Further analysis of objective function perturbation reveals that DeepSeek-V3.2’s manipulation tactics are highly sensitive to both negative and benign system prompts, demonstrating the critical necessity of prompt-based defense engineering and implicit goal auditing. CogManip offers a robust instrument and perspective for auditing the implicit psychological influence and dynamic strategy selection of modern LLMs. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/yanchenfei/CogManip.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evolving from simple text-based interaction systems into LLM agents that can maintain memory, use tools, access external environments, and execute tasks. As their capabilities and autonomy expand, the safety risks they face also become more diverse. Existing evaluations often rely on manually written scenarios, static prompts, or final-output judgments, making it difficult to capture the diverse risks that agents may face during task execution. We introduce ForesightSafety-SAGE, a fully automated scenario generation and safety evaluation framework for LLM agents. Based on five risk dimensions, we instantiate abstract and diverse safety risks in real-world task execution into 1,072 measurable evaluation scenarios. Using the automated evaluation pipeline, 12 LLM agents are evaluated under two authority contexts. The results show that current agents still face substantial behavioral safety risks during task execution, with an average ASR of 47.1% and several models exceeding 70%. These findings demonstrate the importance of executable, process-level evaluation for understanding and improving LLM agent safety.

Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) truly possess human-like Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities has garnered increasing attention. However, existing benchmarks remain largely restricted to narrow paradigms like false belief tasks, failing to capture the full spectrum of human cognitive mechanisms. We introduce CogToM, a comprehensive, theoretically grounded benchmark comprising over 8000 bilingual instances across 46 paradigms, validated by 49 human annotators. A systematic evaluation of 22 representative models, including frontier models like GPT-5.1 and Qwen3-Max, reveals significant performance heterogeneities and highlights persistent bottlenecks in specific dimensions. Further analysis based on human cognitive patterns suggests potential divergences between LLM and human cognitive structures. CogToM offers a robust instrument and perspective for investigating the evolving cognitive boundaries of LLMs. We release our code and data at https://github.com/Beijing-AISI/CogToM.