The capability of LLM agents to function as the ”brain“ of a system fundamentally expands the scope of analysis beyond a standalone model. Consequently, safety is no longer only about input–output content alignment. It also concerns system behavior and real-world execution outcomes. However, the current literature is fragmented across attack types, applications, and benchmarks. This makes it hard to explain why failures such as prompt injection, tool misuse, and memory poisoning often share the same structural cause, and how they spread through an agent workflow. In this survey, we treat isolation as a first-class principle for LLM-agent system safety. By isolation, we refer to the separation of user inputs, tool access, execution channels, inter-agent communication, and environment-originated context. We organize the literature with a boundary-centric taxonomy of five boundaries: user-agent, agent-tool, agent-execution, agent-agent, and system-environment. This view helps identify where the loss of isolation first occurs, how compromise propagates across boundaries, and which defenses are most relevant at each interface. We also summarize cross-boundary failure paths, discuss open challenges, and outline a research agenda for isolation-by-construction in future agent systems.

Accurately assessing model confidence is essential for deploying large language models (LLMs) in mission-critical factual domains. While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely adopted to improve grounding, confidence calibration in RAG settings remains poorly understood. We conduct a systematic study across four benchmarks, revealing that LLMs exhibit poor calibration performance especially when noisy contexts are retrieved. Specifically, contradictory or irrelevant evidence tends to exacerbate the model’s overconfidence issue. To address this, we propose *NOVA Rules* (**NO**ise-aware **V**erbal Confidence C**A**Libration Rules) to provide a principled foundation for resolving overconfidence under noise. We further design **NOVA**, a noise-aware calibration framework that synthesizes supervision from ~2K HotpotQA examples guided by these rules. By performing supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with this data, NOVA equips models with intrinsic noise awareness without relying on stronger teacher models. Empirical results show that NOVA yields substantial gains, improving ECE scores by 10.9% in-domain and 8.0% out-of-domain. By bridging the gap between retrieval noise and verbal calibration, NOVA paves the way for both accurate and epistemically reliable LLMs.

While LVLMs rapidly improve, long-video question answering still remains challenging: relevant evidence is sparse, and question-relevant context often fails to provide cues that discriminate the correct answer from plausible alternatives. Diagnostic analysis on a manually annotated subset of MMR-V shows that prior agentic systems substantially improve cue retrieval over direct VLM inference yet fail to achieve a corresponding gain in answer accuracy, indicating that the bottleneck lies in option-discriminative evidence rather than topical relevance alone. We propose PACE (Progressive Acquisition of Critical Evidence), a factor-guided framework for long-video evidence acquisition. PACE proceeds in two stages: it first indexes clip-level descriptions guided by question-derived factors without observing the candidate answers; it then uses the candidate answers to derive contrastive cues and queries the index for verification. On MMR-V with the open-source Qwen3-VL backbone, PACE achieves 42.6% accuracy, outperforming direct inference and prior agentic baselines including Deep Video Discovery (DVD). On the same diagnostic subset, PACE recovers 66.9% of the annotated cues, providing empirical evidence that its gains are associated with improved evidence recovery rather than stronger answer-side priors alone. Consistent gains over DVD on LVBench, Video-MME, EgoSchema, and LongVideoBench suggest that option-aware evidence acquisition transfers beyond MMR-V.

Multimodal Large Language Models have sparked significant interest due to their potential for social intelligence; however, their ability to perform sequential motivation reasoning remains insufficiently studied. Existing evaluations predominantly examine static text or isolated visual snapshots, which do not reflect the cumulative nature of real-world behavioral drivers. To address this gap, we introduce MulTivationBench, a benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate multimodal motivation reasoning within story-driven visual narratives. The benchmark builds upon established psychological frameworks—Maslow’s hierarchy and Reiss’s basic desires—and requires models to integrate accumulated multimodal context to infer evolving motivations. Results indicate that MulTivationBench presents a significant challenge: all tested models struggle to maintain consistent motivation reasoning across sequential contexts, revealing a critical disconnect between static recognition capabilities and the dynamic reasoning essential for human-like social understanding.

Ensuring the safety and compliance of large language models (LLMs) is of paramount importance. However, existing LLM safety datasets often rely on ad-hoc taxonomies for data generation and suffer from a significant shortage of rule-grounded, real-world cases that are essential for robustly protecting LLMs. In this work, we address this critical gap by constructing a comprehensive safety dataset from a compliance perspective. Using a powerful web-searching agent, we collect a rule-grounded, real-world case dataset OmniCompliance-100K, sourced from multi-domain authoritative references. The dataset spans 74 regulations and policies across a wide range of domains, including security and privacy regulations, content safety and user data privacy policies from leading AI companies and social media platforms, financial security requirements, medical device risk management standards, educational integrity guidelines, and protections of fundamental human rights. In total, our dataset contains 12,985 distinct rules and 106,009 associated real-world compliance cases. Our analysis confirms a strong alignment between the rules and their corresponding cases. We further conduct extensive benchmarking experiments to evaluate the safety and compliance capabilities of advanced LLMs across different model scales. Our experiments reveal several interesting findings that have great potential to offer valuable insights for future LLM safety research.

Real-world decision-making often involves uncertainty expressed in linguistic rather than numerical terms, and Prospect Theory (PT) provides a classic framework for modeling human behavior under such uncertainty. Although recent studies have developed frameworks to estimate PT parameters for Large Language Models (LLMs), few have examined whether PT itself adequately describes LLM decision-making behavior. To address these gaps, we develop a streamlined workflow grounded in a classic behavioral economics experimental paradigm. First, we estimate PT parameters and evaluate how well the resulting model captures LLM decision-making behavior. We then derive probability mappings for epistemic markers in the same context and inject them into prompts to examine the stability of PT parameters under linguistic uncertainty. Our findings suggest that PT does not consistently provide a reliable account of LLM decision-making across models, and that its application to LLMs is likely sensitive to epistemic uncertainty. The findings caution against the deployment of PT-based frameworks in real-world applications where epistemic ambiguity is prevalent, giving valuable insights in behaviour interpretation and future alignment direction for LLM decision-making.

As large language models (LLMs) are integrated into numerous applications, LLMs’ safety becomes critical for both application developers and intended users. Currently, great efforts have been made to develop safety benchmarks with fine-grained taxonomies. However, these benchmarks’ taxonomies are disparate with different safety policies. Thus, existing safeguards trained on these benchmarks are either coarse-grained to only distinguish between "safe” and "unsafe,” or constrained by the specified narrow risk taxonomies. To leverage these fine-grained safety policies across multiple safety taxonomies, we propose GSPR, a Generalizable Safety Policy Reasoner to identify unsafe inputs and outputs with violated safety taxonomies and concise explanations. Unlike prior safeguards which only cover a fixed set of risk factors, GSPR incentivizes its reasoning capability with varied safety taxonomies through reinforcement learning. Our GSPR can be trained across multiple safety benchmarks with distinct taxonomies and naturally exhibits powerful generalization ability. We conduct extensive experiments to show that GSPR significantly improves existing safety guardrails’ reasoning capabilities for both safety and category prediction tasks. Moreover, GSPR also achieves the least inference token costs with explanations.

Large Language Model (LLM) routing is a pivotal technique for navigating a diverse landscape of LLMs, enabling the selection of the best-performing LLMs for specific user queries while balancing performance and cost. However, current routing approaches often face limitations in scalability when dealing with a large pool of specialized LLMs, or in their adaptability to extending model scope and evolving capability domains. To overcome those challenges, we propose InferenceDynamics, a flexible and scalable multi-dimensional routing framework by modeling the capability and knowledge of models. We operate it on our comprehensive dataset RouteMix, and demonstrate its effectiveness and generalizability in group-level routing using modern benchmarks including MMLU-Pro, GPQA, BigGenBench, and LiveBench, showcasing its ability to identify and leverage top-performing models for given tasks, leading to superior outcomes with cost efficiency. The broader adoption of InferenceDynamics can empower users to harness the full specialized potential of the LLM ecosystem, and our code will be made publicly available to encourage further research.

Conceptualization, a fundamental element of human cognition, plays a pivotal role in human generalizable reasoning.Generally speaking, it refers to the process of sequentially abstracting specific instances into higher-level concepts and then forming abstract knowledge that can be applied in unfamiliar or novel situations. This enhances models’ inferential capabilities and supports the effective transfer of knowledge across various domains.Despite its significance, the broad nature of this term has led to inconsistencies in understanding conceptualization across various works, as there exists different types of instances that can be abstracted in a wide variety of ways.There is also a lack of a systematic overview that comprehensively examines existing works on the definition, execution, and application of conceptualization to enhance reasoning tasks.In this paper, we address these gaps by first proposing a categorization of different types of conceptualizations into four levels based on the types of instances being conceptualized, in order to clarify the term and define the scope of our work.Then, we present the first comprehensive survey of over 150 papers, surveying various definitions, resources, methods, and downstream applications related to conceptualization into a unified taxonomy, with a focus on the entity and event levels.Furthermore, we shed light on potential future directions in this field and hope to garner more attention from the community.

Modern large language models (LLMs) employ diverse logical inference mechanisms for reasoning, making the strategic optimization of these approaches critical for advancing their capabilities. This paper systematically investigate the comparative dynamics of inductive (System 1) versus abductive/deductive (System 2) inference in LLMs. We utilize a controlled analogical reasoning environment, varying modality (textual, visual, symbolic), difficulty, and task format (MCQ / free-text). Our analysis reveals System 2 pipelines generally excel, particularly in visual/symbolic modalities and harder tasks, while System 1 is competitive for textual and easier problems. Crucially, task format significantly influences their relative advantage, with System 1 sometimes outperforming System 2 in free-text rule-execution. These core findings generalize to broader in-context learning. Furthermore, we demonstrate that advanced System 2 strategies like hypothesis selection and iterative refinement can substantially scale LLM reasoning. This study offers foundational insights and actionable guidelines for strategically deploying logical inference to enhance LLM reasoning.

In the information era, the vast proliferation of online content poses significant challenges, particularly concerning the trustworthiness of these digital statements, which can have profound societal implications. Although it is possible to manually annotate and verify the authenticity of such content, the sheer volume and rapid pace of information generation render this approach impractical, both in terms of time and cost. Therefore, it is imperative to develop automated systems capable of validating online claims, ensuring that users can use the wealth of information available on the Internet effectively and reliably. Using primarily ChatGPT and the Google search API, GProofT fact checking framework generates question-answer pairs to systematically extract and verify the facts within claims. Based on the outcomes of these QA pairs, claims are subsequently labeled as Supported, Conflicted Evidence/Cherry-Picking, or Refuted. Shown by extensive experiments, GProofT Retrieval generally performs effectively in fact-checking and makes a substantial contribution to the task. Our code is released on https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/GProofT.

Improving user experience and providing personalized search results in E-commerce platforms heavily rely on understanding purchase intention. However, existing methods for acquiring large-scale intentions bank on distilling large language models with human annotation for verification. Such an approach tends to generate product-centric intentions, overlook valuable visual information from product images, and incurs high costs for scalability. To address these issues, we introduce MIND, a multimodal framework that allows Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) to infer purchase intentions from multimodal product metadata and prioritize human-centric ones. Using Amazon Review data, we apply MIND and create a multimodal intention knowledge base, which contains 1,264,441 intentions derived from 126,142 co-buy shopping records across 107,215 products. Extensive human evaluations demonstrate the high plausibility and typicality of our obtained intentions and validate the effectiveness of our distillation framework and filtering mechanism. Further experiments reveal the positive downstream benefits that MIND brings to intention comprehension tasks and highlight the importance of multimodal generation and role-aware filtering. Additionally, MIND shows robustness to different prompts and superior generation quality compared to previous methods.