We introduce AutoMonitor-Bench, the first benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the reliability of LLM-based misbehavior monitors across diverse tasks and failure modes. AutoMonitor-Bench consists of 3,010 carefully annotated test samples spanning question answering, code generation, and reasoning, with paired misbehavior and benign instances. We evaluate monitors using two complementary metrics: Miss Rate (MR) and False Alarm Rate (FAR), capturing failures to detect misbehavior and oversensitivity to benign behavior respectively. Evaluating 12 proprietary and 10 open-source LLMs, we observe substantial variability in monitoring performance and a consistent trade-off between MR and FAR, revealing an inherent safety–utility tension. To further explore the limits of monitor reliability, we construct a large-scale training corpus of 153,581 samples and fine-tune Qwen3-4B-Instruction, to investigate whether training on known, relatively easy-to-construct misbehavior datasets improves monitoring performance on unseen and more implicit misbehaviors. Our results highlight the challenges of reliable, scalable misbehavior monitoring and motivate future work on task-aware designing and training strategies for LLM-based monitors.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in processing both visual and textual information. However, the critical challenge of alignment between visual and textual representations is not fully understood. This survey presents a comprehensive examination of alignment and misalignment in LVLMs through an explainability lens. We first examine the fundamentals of alignment, exploring its representational and behavioral aspects, training methodologies, and theoretical foundations. We then analyze misalignment phenomena across three semantic levels: object, attribute, and relational misalignment. Our investigation reveals that misalignment emerges from challenges at multiple levels: the data level, the model level, and the inference level. We provide a comprehensive review of existing mitigation strategies, categorizing them into parameter-frozen and parameter-tuning approaches. Finally, we outline promising future research directions, emphasizing the need for standardized evaluation protocols and in-depth explainability studies.

Recent studies highlight the effectiveness of using in-context learning (ICL) to steer large language models (LLMs) in processing tabular data, a challenging task given the structured nature of such data. Despite advancements in performance, the fairness implications of these methods are less understood. This study investigates how varying demonstrations within ICL prompts influence the fairness outcomes of LLMs. Our findings reveal that deliberately including minority group samples in prompts significantly boosts fairness without sacrificing predictive accuracy. Further experiments demonstrate that the proportion of minority to majority samples in demonstrations affects the trade-off between fairness and prediction accuracy. Based on these insights, we introduce a mitigation technique that employs clustering and evolutionary strategies to curate a diverse and representative sample set from the training data. This approach aims to enhance both predictive performance and fairness in ICL applications. Experimental results validate that our proposed method dramatically improves fairness across various metrics, showing its efficacy in real-world scenarios.