As video large language models (Video-LLMs) become increasingly integrated into real-world applications that demand grounded multimodal reasoning, ensuring their factual consistency and reliability is of critical importance. However, sycophancy, the tendency of these models to align with user input even when it contradicts the visual evidence, undermines their trustworthiness in such contexts. Current sycophancy research has largely overlooked its specific manifestations in the video-language domain, resulting in a notable absence of systematic benchmarks and targeted evaluations to understand how Video-LLMs respond under misleading user input. To fill this gap, we propose ViSE (Video-LLM Sycophancy Benchmarking and Evaluation), the first benchmark designed to evaluate sycophantic behavior in state-of-the-art Video-LLMs across diverse question formats, prompt biases, and visual reasoning tasks. Specifically, ViSE pioneeringly brings linguistic perspectives on sycophancy into the video domain, enabling fine-grained analysis across multiple sycophancy types and interaction patterns. Furthermore, we propose two potential training-free mitigation strategies revealing potential paths for reducing sycophantic bias: (i) enhancing visual grounding through interpretable key-frame selection and (ii) steering model behavior away from sycophancy via targeted, inference-time intervention on its internal neural representations. Our code is available at https://github.com/William030422/Video-Sycophancy.

Recently, AI-driven interactions with computing devices have advanced from basic prototype tools to sophisticated, LLM-based systems that emulate human-like operations in graphical user interfaces. We are now witnessing the emergence of Computer-Using Agents (CUAs), capable of autonomously performing tasks such as navigating desktop applications, web pages, and mobile apps. However, as these agents grow in capability, they also introduce novel safety and security risks. Vulnerabilities in LLM-driven reasoning, with the added complexity of integrating multiple software components and multimodal inputs, further complicate the security landscape. In this paper, we present a systematization of knowledge on the safety and security threats of CUAs. We conduct a comprehensive literature review and distill our findings along four research objectives: (i) define the CUA that suits safety analysis; (ii) categorize current safety threats among CUAs; (iii) propose a comprehensive taxonomy of existing defensive strategies; (iv) summarize prevailing benchmarks, datasets, and evaluation metrics used to assess the safety and performance of CUAs. Building on these insights, our work provides future researchers with a structured foundation for exploring unexplored vulnerabilities and offers practitioners actionable guidance in designing and deploying secure Computer-Using Agents.

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.

Fine-tuning Large Language Models on a political topic will significantly manipulate their political stance on various issues and unintentionally affect their stance on broad topics. While previous studies have proposed this issue, there is still a lack of understanding regarding the internal representations of these stances and the mechanisms that lead to unintended cross-topic generalization. In this paper, we systematically explore the internal mechanisms underlying this phenomenon from a neuron-level perspective and how to mitigate the cross-topic generalization of political fine-tuning. Firstly, we propose Political Neuron Localization through Activation Contrasting (PNLAC) to identify two distinct types of political neurons: general political neurons, which govern stance across multiple political topics, and topic-specific neurons that affect the model’s political stance on individual topics. We find that these political neuron types exist in the middle and later layers across four models and datasets through activation patching experiments. Leveraging these insights, we introduce InhibitFT, an inhibition-based fine-tuning method that effectively mitigates the cross-topic stance generalization. Experimental results demonstrate the robustness of the identified neuron types across various models and datasets and show that InhibitFT significantly reduces the cross-topic stance generalization by 20% on average while preserving topic-specific performance. Moreover, we demonstrate that selectively inhibiting only 5% of neurons is sufficient to effectively mitigate the cross-topic stance generalization.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) face safety misalignment where visual inputs enable harmful outputs. Existing methods require explicit safety labels or contrastive data, yet threat-related concepts are concrete and visually depictable, while safety concepts like helpfulness are abstract and lack visual referents. Inspired by self-fulfilling mechanism underlying emergent misalignment, we propose Visual Self-Fulfilling Alignment (VSFA). VSFA fine-tunes vision-language models (VLMs) on neutral VQA tasks constructed around threat-related images, without any safety labels. Through repeated exposure to threat-related visual content, models internalize implicit semantics of vigilance and caution, shaping safety-oriented personas. Experiments across multiple VLMs and safety benchmarks demonstrate that VSFA reduces attack success rate, improves response quality, and mitigates over-refusal while preserving general capabilities. Our work extends self-fulfilling mechanism from text to visual modalities, offering a label-free approach to VLMs alignment.

Suicide remains a major global mental health challenge, and early intervention hinges on recognizing signs of suicidal ideation. In private conversations, such ideation is often expressed in subtle or conflicted ways, making detection especially difficult. Existing data sets are mainly based on public help-seeking platforms such as Reddit, which fail to capture the introspective and ambiguous nature of suicidal ideation in more private contexts. To address this gap, we introduce , a novel dataset of 1,200 test cases simulating implicit suicidal ideation within psychologically rich dialogue scenarios. Each case is grounded in psychological theory, combining the Death/Suicide Implicit Association Test (D/S-IAT) patterns, expanded suicidal expressions, cognitive distortions, and contextual stressors. In addition, we propose a psychology-guided evaluation framework to assess the ability of LLMs to identify implicit suicidal ideation through their responses. Experiments with eight widely used LLMs across varied prompting conditions reveal that current models often struggle significantly to recognize implicit suicidal ideation. Our findings highlight the urgent need for more clinically grounded evaluation frameworks and design practices to ensure the safe use of LLMs in sensitive support systems.

Rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) into societal applications has intensified concerns about their alignment with universal ethical principles, as their internal value representations remain opaque despite behavioral alignment advancements. Current approaches struggle to systematically interpret how values are encoded in neural architectures, limited by datasets that prioritize superficial judgments over mechanistic analysis. We introduce ValueLocate, a mechanistic interpretability framework grounded in the Schwartz Values Survey, to address this gap. Our method first constructs ValueInsight, a dataset that operationalizes four dimensions of universal value through behavioral contexts in the real world. Leveraging this dataset, we develop a neuron identification method that calculates activation differences between opposing value aspects, enabling precise localization of value-critical neurons without relying on computationally intensive attribution methods. Our proposed validation method demonstrates that targeted manipulation of these neurons effectively alters model value orientations, establishing causal relationships between neurons and value representations. This work advances the foundation for value alignment by bridging psychological value frameworks with neuron analysis in LLMs.