Human commonsense understanding of the physical and social world is organized around intuitive theories. These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why? A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments, such as the violation of norms and whether the harm is avoidable or inevitable.

Standardized and quantified evaluation of machine behaviors is a crux of understanding LLMs. In this study, we draw inspiration from psychometric studies by leveraging human personality theory as a tool for studying machine behaviors. Originating as a philosophical quest for human behaviors, the study of personality delves into how individuals differ in thinking, feeling, and behaving. Toward building and understanding human-like social machines, we are motivated to ask: Can we assess machine behaviors by leveraging human psychometric tests in a principled and quantitative manner? If so, can we induce a specific personality in LLMs? To answer these questions, we introduce the Machine Personality Inventory (MPI) tool for studying machine behaviors; MPI follows standardized personality tests, built upon the Big Five Personality Factors (Big Five) theory and personality assessment inventories.

These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why?

This paradigm challenges traditional data management and analysis techniques by demanding innovative solutions capable of processing, analyzing, and deriving insights from vast and diverse datasets. In particular, the inclusion of mixed data types, such as numerical and categorical variables, poses significant challenges to conventional methodologies, necessitating the development of novel approaches to effectively leverage the wealth of information available [2]. Traditionally, data handling methods were designed around homogeneous datasets, typically consisting of numerical values. However, the big data paradigm introduces a multitude of data types, including structured, unstructured, and semi-structured data, which demand a departure from traditional approaches. Moreover, the three primary characteristics of big data--volume, velocity, and variety--amplify the complexity of data analysis, requiring scalable and adaptable solutions capable of processing large volumes of data at high speeds while accommodating diverse data formats and structures. These methods for handling mixed data often involve separate analyses of categorical and numerical variables, treating them as distinct entities rather than integrating their interdependencies.

Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate hallucinations -- plausible but factually incorrect outputs -- undermining their reliability. While prior work has examined hallucinations from macroscopic perspectives such as training data and objectives, the underlying neuron-level mechanisms remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we conduct a systematic investigation into hallucination-associated neurons (H-Neurons) in LLMs from three perspectives: identification, behavioral impact, and origins. Regarding their identification, we demonstrate that a remarkably sparse subset of neurons (less than $0.1\%$ of total neurons) can reliably predict hallucination occurrences, with strong generalization across diverse scenarios. In terms of behavioral impact, controlled interventions reveal that these neurons are causally linked to over-compliance behaviors. Concerning their origins, we trace these neurons back to the pre-trained base models and find that these neurons remain predictive for hallucination detection, indicating they emerge during pre-training. Our findings bridge macroscopic behavioral patterns with microscopic neural mechanisms, offering insights for developing more reliable LLMs.

We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit altruistic tendencies, and critically, whether their implicit associations and self-reports predict actual altruistic behavior. Using a multi-method approach inspired by human social psychology, we tested 24 frontier LLMs across three paradigms: (1) an Implicit Association Test (IAT) measuring implicit altruism bias, (2) a forced binary choice task measuring behavioral altruism, and (3) a self-assessment scale measuring explicit altruism beliefs. Our key findings are: (1) All models show strong implicit pro-altruism bias (mean IAT = 0.87, p < .0001), confirming models "know" altruism is good. (2) Models behave more altruistically than chance (65.6% vs. 50%, p < .0001), but with substantial variation (48-85%). (3) Implicit associations do not predict behavior (r = .22, p = .29). (4) Most critically, models systematically overestimate their own altruism, claiming 77.5% altruism while acting at 65.6% (p < .0001, Cohen's d = 1.08). This "virtue signaling gap" affects 75% of models tested. Based on these findings, we recommend the Calibration Gap (the discrepancy between self-reported and behavioral values) as a standardized alignment metric. Well-calibrated models are more predictable and behaviorally consistent; only 12.5% of models achieve the ideal combination of high prosocial behavior and accurate self-knowledge.

Soft robotics has advanced rapidly, yet its control methods remain fragmented: different morphologies and actuation schemes still require task-specific controllers, hindering theoretical integration and large-scale deployment. A generic control framework is therefore essential, and a key obstacle lies in the persistent use of rigid-body control logic, which relies on precise models and strict low-level execution. Such a paradigm is effective for rigid robots but fails for soft robots, where the ability to tolerate and exploit approximate action representations, i.e., control compliance, is the basis of robustness and adaptability rather than a disturbance to be eliminated. Control should thus shift from suppressing compliance to explicitly exploiting it. Human motor control exemplifies this principle: instead of computing exact dynamics or issuing detailed muscle-level commands, it expresses intention through high-level movement tendencies, while reflexes and biomechanical mechanisms autonomously resolve local details. This architecture enables robustness, flexibility, and cross-task generalization. Motivated by this insight, we propose a generic soft-robot control framework grounded in control compliance and validate it across robots with diverse morphologies and actuation mechanisms. The results demonstrate stable, safe, and cross-platform transferable behavior, indicating that embracing control compliance, rather than resisting it, may provide a widely applicable foundation for unified soft-robot control.