Foundation models have shown promise across various financial applications, yet their effectiveness for corporate bankruptcy prediction remains systematically unevaluated against established methods. We study bankruptcy forecasting using Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct and TabPFN, evaluated on large, highly imbalanced datasets of over one million company records from the Visegrád Group. We provide the first systematic comparison of foundation models against classical machine learning baselines for this task. Our results show that models such as XGBoost and CatBoost consistently outperform foundation models across all prediction horizons. LLM-based approaches suffer from unreliable probability estimates, undermining their use in risk-sensitive financial settings. TabPFN, while competitive with simpler baselines, requires substantial computational resources with costs not justified by performance gains. These findings suggest that, despite their generality, current foundation models remain less effective than specialized methods for bankruptcy forecasting.

Human explanations of natural language, rationales, form a tool to assess whether models learn a label for the right reasons or rely on dataset-specific shortcuts. Sufficiency is a common metric for estimating the informativeness of rationales, but it provides limited insight into the effects of rationale information on model performance. We address this limitation by relating sufficiency to two modelling paradigms: the ability of models to identify which tokens are part of the rationale (through token classification) and the ability of improving model performance by incorporating rationales in the input (through attention regularisation). We find that highly informative rationales are not likely to help classify the instance correctly. Sufficiency conversely captures the classification impact of the non-rationalised context, which interferes with rationale information in the same input. We also find that incorporating rationale information in model inputs can boost cross-domain classification, but results are inconsistent per task and model type. Finally, sufficiency and token classification appear to be unrelated. These results exemplify the complexity of rationales, showing that metrics capable of systematically capturing this type of information merit further investigation.

The adoption of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in embodied AI agents, while being effective, brings safety concerns such as jailbreaking. Prior work have explored the possibility of directly jailbreaking the embodied agents through elaborated multi-modal prompts. However, no prior work has studied or even reported indirect jailbreaks in embodied AI, where a black-box attacker induces a jailbreak without issuing direct prompts to the embodied agent. In this paper, we propose, for the first time, indirect environmental jailbreak (IEJ), a novel attack to jailbreak embodied AI via indirect prompt injected into the environment, such as malicious instructions written on a wall. Our key insight is that embodied AI does not ''think twice'' about the instructions provided by the environment -- a blind trust that attackers can exploit to jailbreak the embodied agent. We further design and implement open-source prototypes of two fully-automated frameworks: SHAWSHANK, the first automatic attack generation framework for the proposed attack IEJ; and SHAWSHANK-FORGE, the first automatic benchmark generation framework for IEJ. Then, using SHAWSHANK-FORGE, we automatically construct SHAWSHANK-BENCH, the first benchmark for indirectly jailbreaking embodied agents. Together, our two frameworks and one benchmark answer the questions of what content can be used for malicious IEJ instructions, where they should be placed, and how IEJ can be systematically evaluated. Evaluation results show that SHAWSHANK outperforms eleven existing methods across 3,957 task-scene combinations and compromises all six tested VLMs. Furthermore, current defenses only partially mitigate our attack, and we have responsibly disclosed our findings to all affected VLM vendors.

Through reinforcement learning (RL) with outcome correctness rewards, large reasoning models (LRMs) with scaled inference computation have demonstrated substantial success on complex reasoning tasks. However, the one-sided reward, focused solely on final correctness, limits its ability to provide detailed supervision over internal reasoning process. This deficiency leads to suboptimal internal reasoning quality, manifesting as issues like over-thinking, under-thinking, redundant-thinking, and disordered-thinking. Inspired by the recent progress in LRM self-rewarding, we introduce self-rewriting framework, where a model rewrites its own reasoning texts, and subsequently learns from the rewritten reasoning to improve the internal thought process quality. For algorithm design, we propose a selective rewriting approach wherein only "simple" samples, defined by the model's consistent correctness, are rewritten, thereby preserving all original reward signals of GRPO. For practical implementation, we compile rewriting and vanilla generation within one single batch, maintaining the scalability of the RL algorithm and introducing only ~10% overhead. Extensive experiments on diverse tasks with different model sizes validate the effectiveness of self-rewriting. In terms of the accuracy-length tradeoff, the self-rewriting approach achieves improved accuracy (+0.6) with substantially shorter reasoning (-46%) even without explicit instructions in rewriting prompts to reduce reasoning length, outperforming existing strong baselines. In terms of internal reasoning quality, self-rewriting achieves significantly higher scores (+7.2) under the LLM-as-a-judge metric, successfully mitigating internal reasoning flaws.

With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), their deployment in real-world applications has become increasingly widespread. LLMs are expected to deliver robust performance across diverse tasks, user preferences, and practical scenarios. However, as demands grow, ensuring that LLMs produce responses aligned with human intent remains a foundational challenge. In particular, aligning model behavior effectively and efficiently during inference, without costly retraining or extensive supervision, is both a critical requirement and a non-trivial technical endeavor. To address the challenge, we propose SDA (Steering-Driven Distribution Alignment), a training-free and model-agnostic alignment framework designed for open-source LLMs. SDA dynamically redistributes model output probabilities based on user-defined alignment instructions, enhancing alignment between model behavior and human intents without fine-tuning. The method is lightweight, resource-efficient, and compatible with a wide range of open-source LLMs. It can function independently during inference or be integrated with training-based alignment strategies. Moreover, SDA supports personalized preference alignment, enabling flexible control over the model response behavior. Empirical results demonstrate that SDA consistently improves alignment performance across 8 open-source LLMs with varying scales and diverse origins, evaluated on three key alignment dimensions, helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty (3H). Specifically, SDA achieves average gains of 64.4% in helpfulness, 30% in honesty and 11.5% in harmlessness across the tested models, indicating its effectiveness and generalization across diverse models and application scenarios.

Complex scientific questions often entail multiple intents, such as identifying gene mutations and linking them to related diseases. These tasks require evidence from diverse sources and multi-hop reasoning, while conventional retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems are usually single-intent oriented, leading to incomplete evidence coverage. To assess this limitation, we introduce the Multi-Intent Scientific Question Answering (MuISQA) benchmark, which is designed to evaluate RAG systems on heterogeneous evidence coverage across sub-questions. In addition, we propose an intent-aware retrieval framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to hypothesize potential answers, decompose them into intent-specific queries, and retrieve supporting passages for each underlying intent. The retrieved fragments are then aggregated and re-ranked via Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) to balance coverage across diverse intents while reducing redundancy. Experiments on both MuISQA benchmark and other general RAG datasets demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms conventional approaches, particularly in retrieval accuracy and evidence coverage.

The ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform complex, multi-step reasoning is a central focus of modern AI research. To evaluate and enhance this capability, the pass@k metric, which measures the probability of obtaining at least one correct solution in k independent samples, has received significant attention. Its intuitive appeal has led to its adoption not only as an evaluation standard but also as a direct optimization objective in reinforcement learning. In this paper, we analyze the pass@k objective, derive its gradient, and demonstrate that it is fundamentally a per-example positive reweighting of the simpler pass@1 objective. Our analysis reveals that the pass@k objective provides a vanishing learning signal in regimes where exploration is most critical. We further analyze the dynamics of "exploration collapse", showing that as the policy concentrates probability mass, the gap between pass@k and pass@1 diminishes. We conclude that while pass@k is a useful diagnostic tool, it may be an unsuitable direct objective for optimization. Instead, mechanisms explicitly encouraging efficient exploration could offer a more effective path forward for reinforcement learning in reasoning tasks.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in cross-modal understanding, but remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks through visual inputs despite robust textual safety mechanisms. These vulnerabilities arise from two core weaknesses: the continuous nature of visual representations, which allows for gradient-based attacks, and the inadequate transfer of text-based safety mechanisms to visual content. We introduce Q-MLLM, a novel architecture that integrates two-level vector quantization to create a discrete bottleneck against adversarial attacks while preserving multimodal reasoning capabilities. By discretizing visual representations at both pixel-patch and semantic levels, Q-MLLM blocks attack pathways and bridges the cross-modal safety alignment gap. Our two-stage training methodology ensures robust learning while maintaining model utility. Experiments demonstrate that Q-MLLM achieves significantly better defense success rate against both jailbreak attacks and toxic image attacks than existing approaches. Notably, Q-MLLM achieves perfect defense success rate (100\%) against jailbreak attacks except in one arguable case, while maintaining competitive performance on multiple utility benchmarks with minimal inference overhead. This work establishes vector quantization as an effective defense mechanism for secure multimodal AI systems without requiring expensive safety-specific fine-tuning or detection overhead. Code is available at https://github.com/Amadeuszhao/QMLLM.

Despite their advanced reasoning capabilities, state-of-the-art Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrably lack a core component of human intelligence: the ability to `read the room' and assess deception in complex social interactions. To rigorously quantify this failure, we introduce a new task, Multimodal Interactive Deception Assessment (MIDA), and present a novel multimodal dataset providing synchronized video and text with verifiable ground-truth labels for every statement. We establish a comprehensive benchmark evaluating 12 state-of-the-art open- and closed-source MLLMs, revealing a significant performance gap: even powerful models like GPT-4o struggle to distinguish truth from falsehood reliably. Our analysis of failure modes indicates that these models fail to effectively ground language in multimodal social cues and lack the ability to model what others know, believe, or intend, highlighting the urgent need for novel approaches to building more perceptive and trustworthy AI systems. To take a step forward, we design a Social Chain-of-Thought (SoCoT) reasoning pipeline and a Dynamic Social Epistemic Memory (DSEM) module. Our framework yields performance improvement on this challenging task, demonstrating a promising new path toward building MLLMs capable of genuine human-like social reasoning.

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly depends on high-quality supervised data, yet existing instruction-tuning and RL datasets remain costly to curate and often rely on synthetic samples that introduce hallucination and limited diversity. At the same time, textbooks and exercise materials contain abundant, high-quality human-authored Question-Answer(QA) content that remains underexploited due to the difficulty of transforming raw PDFs into AI-ready supervision. Although modern OCR and vision-language models can accurately parse document structure, their outputs lack the semantic alignment required for training. We propose an automated pipeline that extracts well-formed QA and visual-QA (VQA) pairs from educational documents by combining layout-aware OCR with LLM-based semantic parsing. Experiments across diverse document types show that the method produces accurate, aligned, and low-noise QA/VQA pairs. This approach enables scalable use of real-world educational content and provides a practical alternative to synthetic data generation for improving reasoning-oriented LLM training. All code and data-processing pipelines are open-sourced at https://github.com/OpenDCAI/DataFlow.