Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are valuable intellectual property due to their substantial training and alignment costs, creating a need for reliable ownership verification under black-box access, where a verifier can only query a suspect model and inspect its returned output. Existing trigger–response fingerprints are easy to test but are often weakly coupled with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and can be fragile under paraphrasing or post-hoc model modifications. We propose CoT-Lock, a reasoning-mediated fingerprinting framework that casts ownership verification as a structured conflict-resolution task. CoT-Lock constructs verification queries in which a default semantic constraint is superseded only by a higher-priority meta-override rule, training the model to resolve fingerprint activation through priority-based arbitration. Our primary ownership test is output-only on confidential held-out probes; when reasoning traces are visible, trace-level verification further checks the expected arbitration process. Experiments on representative reasoning architectures show that CoT-Lock achieves stable black-box verification while preserving reasoning ability with minimal performance degradation, low false positives, and improved robustness against paraphrasing, fine-tuning, pruning, and quantization. Our code is available at https://github.com/acang425/CoT-Lock.

The widespread use of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) has raised concerns about model toxicity. However, current research mainly focuses on explicit toxicity, with less attention to some more implicit toxicity regarding prejudice and discrimination. To address this limitation, we introduce a subtler type of toxicity named dual-implicit toxicity and a novel toxicity benchmark termed MDIT-Bench: Multimodal Dual-Implicit Toxicity Benchmark. Specifically, we first create the MDIT-Dataset with dual-implicit toxicity using the proposed Multi-stage Human-in-loop In-context Generation method. Based on this dataset, we construct the MDIT-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating the sensitivity of models to dual-implicit toxicity, with 317,638 questions covering 12 categories, 23 subcategories, and 780 topics. MDIT-Bench includes three difficulty levels, and we propose a metric to measure the toxicity gap exhibited by the model across them. In the experiment, we conducted MDIT-Bench on 13 prominent LMMs, and the results show that these LMMs cannot handle dual-implicit toxicity effectively. The model’s performance drops significantly in hard level, revealing that these LMMs still contain a significant amount of hidden but activatable toxicity. The data will be released upon the paper’s acceptance.

Recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have enhanced their versatility as they integrate a growing number of modalities. Considering the heavy cost of training MLLMs, it is efficient to reuse the existing ones and extend them to more modalities through Modality-incremental Continual Learning (MCL). The exploration of MCL is in its early stages. In this work, we dive into the causes of performance degradation in MCL. We uncover that it suffers not only from forgetting as in traditional continual learning, but also from misalignment between the modality-agnostic and modality-specific components. To this end, we propose an elegantly simple MCL paradigm called “MErge then ReAlign” (MERA) to address both forgetting and misalignment. MERA avoids introducing heavy model budgets or modifying model architectures, hence is easy to deploy and highly reusable in the MLLM community. Extensive experiments demonstrate the impressive performance of MERA, holding an average of 99.84% Backward Relative Gain when extending to four modalities, achieving nearly lossless MCL performance. Our findings underscore the misalignment issue in MCL. More broadly, our work showcases how to adjust different components of MLLMs during continual learning.