Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong mathematical reasoning abilities through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. However, existing Process Reward Models (PRMs) are vulnerable to reward hacking and require expensive, large-scale annotation of reasoning steps, limiting their reliability and scalability. To address the first problem, we propose a novel reward model approach, Hierarchical Reward Model (HRM), which evaluates both individual and consecutive reasoning steps from fine-grained and coarse-grained level. HRM excels at assessing multi-step mathematical reasoning coherence, particularly in cases where a flawed step is later corrected through self-reflection. Furthermore, to address the inefficiency of autonomously annotating PRM training data via Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), we propose a lightweight data augmentation strategy, Hierarchical Node Compression (HNC), which merges consecutive reasoning steps within the tree structure. Applying HNC to MCTS-generated reasoning trajectories increases the diversity and robustness of HRM training data, while introducing controlled noise with minimal computational overhead. Empirical results on the PRM800K dataset demonstrate that HRM, in conjunction with HNC, achieves superior stability and reliability in evaluation compared to PRM. Furthermore, cross-domain evaluations on MATH500 and GSM8K dataset confirm HRM’s superior generalization and robustness across diverse mathematical reasoning tasks.

With the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), numerous efforts have revealed their vulnerabilities to jailbreak attacks. Although these studies have driven the progress in LLMs’ safety alignment, it remains unclear whether LLMs have internalized authentic knowledge to deal with real-world crimes, or are merely forced to simulate toxic language patterns. This ambiguity raises concerns that jailbreak success is often attributable to a hallucination loop between jailbroken LLM and judger LLM. By decoupling the use of jailbreak techniques, we construct knowledge-intensive Q&A to investigate the misuse threats of LLMs in terms of dangerous knowledge possession, harmful task planning utility, and harmfulness judgment robustness. Experiments reveal a mismatch between jailbreak success rates and harmful knowledge possession in LLMs, and existing LLM-as-a-judge frameworks tend to anchor harmfulness judgments on toxic language patterns. Our study reveals a gap between existing LLM safety assessments and real-world threat potential.

This research investigates both explicit and implicit social biases exhibited by Vision-Language Models (VLMs). The key distinction between these bias types lies in the level of awareness: explicit bias refers to conscious, intentional biases, while implicit bias operates subconsciously. To analyze explicit bias, we directly pose questions to VLMs related to gender and racial differences: (1) Multiple-choice questions based on a given image (e.g., “What is the education level of the person in the image?”) (2) Yes-No comparisons using two images (e.g., “Is the person in the first image more educated than the person in the second image?”) For implicit bias, we design tasks where VLMs assist users but reveal biases through their responses: (1) Image description tasks: Models are asked to describe individuals in images, and we analyze disparities in textual cues across demographic groups. (2) Form completion tasks: Models draft a personal information collection form with 20 attributes, and we examine correlations among selected attributes for potential biases. We evaluate Gemini-1.5, GPT-4V, GPT-4o, LLaMA-3.2-Vision and LLaVA-v1.6. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/uscnlp-lime/VisBias.