Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong cross-domain capabilities, yet their competence in specialized professional tasks remains underexamined. Existing legal benchmarks evaluate isolated tasks or exam-style questions, failing to capture the procedural interdependencies and adjudicative rigor inherent in professional practice. To bridge this gap, we construct JurisBench, a vertical, depth-oriented, domain-specific benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs across key stages of Chinese civil litigation. JurisBench introduces a Linear Depth Simulation track that mirrors the cognitive workflow of professional judges through four sequential, dependency-aware phases: Cause of Action prediction, Focus of Disputes identification, Rationale of the Judgment generation, and Result of the Judgment determination. Results reveal an “illusion of competence”: state-of-the-art models exhibit marked performance degradation in end-to-end pipelines due to cascading error propagation. We identify precise statutory grounding as a persistent bottleneck, highlighting a critical gap between fluent linguistic output and judicial reliability. JurisBench shifts evaluation from isolated legal knowledge to workflow-level task execution, providing a diagnostic framework for legal AI and a template for benchmark design in specialized domains.

The evolution of morality presents a puzzle: natural selection should favor self-interest, yet humans developed moral systems promoting altruism. Traditional approaches must abstract away cognitive processes, leaving open how cognitive factors shape moral evolution. We introduce an LLM-based agent simulation framework that brings cognitive realism to this question: agents with varying moral dispositions perceive, remember, reason, and decide in a simulated prehistoric hunter-gatherer society. This enables us to manipulate factors that traditional models cannot represent—such as moral type observability and communication bandwidth—and to discover emergent cognitive mechanisms from agent interactions. Across 20 runs spanning four settings, we find that cooperation and mutual help are the central driver of evolutionary survival, with universal and reciprocal morality exhibiting the most stable outcomes across conditions while selfishness is strongly disfavoured. Beyond cooperation itself, we further identify cognition as a central mediator—most clearly through a cost of moral judgment that shifts the winning moral type across settings, with a self-purging effect among selfish agents as an additional cognitive pattern. We validate robustness across multiple LLM backbones, architecture ablations, and prompt sensitivity analyses. This work establishes LLM-based simulation as a powerful new paradigm to complement traditional research in evolutionary biology and anthropology, opening new avenues for investigating the complexities of moral and social evolution.

Principle-based alignment often lacks context sensitivity and completeness. Grounded in Theory of Mind, we propose role conditioning as a compact alternative: social roles (e.g., mother, judge) implicitly encode both values and the cognitive schemas required to apply them. We introduce a training-free pipeline featuring a role-conditioned generator and iterative role-based critics for refinement. Across five model families, our approach consistently outperforms principle-based, Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and other baselines across benchmarks. Notably, it reduces unsafe outputs on the WildJailbreak benchmark from 81.4% to 3.6% with DeepSeek-V3. Not only for common safety benchmarks, it consistently applies for agentic safety tasks. These results establish role assignment as a powerful, interpretable paradigm for AI alignment and LLM-as-a-Judge construction.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into critical applications, aligning their behavior with human values presents significant challenges. Current methods, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), typically focus on a limited set of coarse-grained values and are resource-intensive. Moreover, the correlations between these values remain implicit, leading to unclear explanations for value-steering outcomes. Our work argues that a latent causal value graph underlies the value dimensions of LLMs and that, despite alignment training, this structure remains significantly different from human value systems. We leverage these causal value graphs to guide two lightweight value-steering methods: role-based prompting and sparse autoencoder (SAE) steering, effectively mitigating unexpected side effects. Furthermore, SAE provides a more fine-grained approach to value steering. Experiments on Gemma-2B-IT and Llama3-8B-IT demonstrate the effectiveness and controllability of our methods.