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.

Despite the remarkable advances of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse cognitive tasks, the rapid enhancement of these capabilities also introduces emergent deceptive behaviors that may induce severe risks in high-stakes deployments. More critically, the characterization of deception across realistic real-world scenarios remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, we establish DeceptionBench, the first benchmark that systematically evaluates how deceptive tendencies manifest across different societal domains, what their intrinsic behavioral patterns are, and how extrinsic factors affect them. Specifically, on the static count, the benchmark encompasses 150 meticulously designed scenarios in five domains, i.e., Economy, Healthcare, Education, Social Interaction, and Entertainment, with over 1,000 samples, providing sufficient empirical foundations for deception analysis. On the intrinsic dimension, we explore whether models exhibit self-interested egoistic tendencies or sycophantic behaviors that prioritize user appeasement. On the extrinsic dimension, we investigate how contextual factors modulate deceptive outputs under neutral conditions, reward-based incentivization, and coercive pressures. Moreover, we incorporate sustained multi-turn interaction loops to construct a more realistic simulation of real-world feedback dynamics. Extensive experiments across LLMs and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) reveal critical vulnerabilities, particularly amplified deception under reinforcement dynamics, demonstrating that current models lack robust resistance to manipulative contextual cues and the urgent need for advanced safeguards against various deception behaviors. Code and resources are publicly available at https://github.com/Aries-iai/DeceptionBench.

Abstract--Negative bias refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to excessively generate negative responses in binary decision tasks (e.g., yes-no question answering). Previous research has focused on detecting and addressing negative attention heads that induce negative bias. However, the underlying detailed factors influencing negative bias remain underexplored. In this paper, we demonstrate that LLMs exhibit format-level negative bias, meaning the prompt format more influences their responses than the semantics of the negative response. For the fine-grained study of the negative bias, we introduce a pipeline for constructing the evaluation set, which systematically categorizes the dataset into three subsets based on the model's parametric knowledge: correct, incorrect, and insufficient relevant knowledge. Through analysis of this evaluation set, we identify a shortcut behavior in which models tend to generate negative responses when they lack sufficient knowledge to answer a yes-no question, leading to negative bias. We further examine how negative bias changes under various prompting scenarios related to parametric knowledge. We observe that providing relevant context and offering an "I don't know" option generally reduces negative bias, whereas chain-of-thought prompting tends to amplify the bias. Finally, we demonstrate that the degree of negative bias can vary depending on the type of prompt, which influences the direction of the response. Our work reveals the various factors that influence negative bias, providing critical insights for mitigating it in LLMs. ECENT advances in the capabilities and emergent abilities of large language models (LLMs) have led to rapid improvements in the performance of a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks [1]-[5]. Leveraging their ability to follow instructions, LLMs are able to perform complex, previously unseen tasks, enabling human-like interactions [6]-[9]. One critical issue is the hallucination problem, where the model generates content that contains misleading information, which does not correspond to the given context or real-world knowledge [11]. J. Song was with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Seoul National University, South Korea (coms1580@gmail.com).

In fully observable environments, most reward functions have an optimal policy which seeks power by keeping options open and staying alive [ Turner et al., 2021 ]. However, the real world is neither fully observable, nor must trained agents be even approximately reward-optimal.

Based on this, we can qualitatively measure the diversity brought by each attacker based on the hit ratio improvement of each community.