Pruning has emerged as a promising direction for accelerating large language model (LLM) inference, yet existing approaches often suffer from instability because they rely on offline calibration data that may not generalize across inputs. In this work, we introduce Token Filtering, a lightweight online structured pruning technique that makes pruning decisions directly during inference without any calibration data. The key idea is to measure token redundancy via joint key-value similarity and skip redundant attention computations, thereby reducing inference cost while preserving critical information. To further enhance stability, we design a variance-aware fusion strategy that adaptively weights key and value similarity across heads, ensuring that informative tokens are retained even under high pruning ratios. This design introduces no additional memory overhead and provides a more reliable criterion for token importance. Extensive experiments on LLaMA-2 (7B/13B), LLaMA-3 (8B), and Mistral (7B) demonstrate that Token Filtering consistently outperforms prior structured pruning methods, preserving accuracy on commonsense reasoning benchmarks and maintaining strong performance on challenging tasks such as MMLU, even with 50% pruning.

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for simulating complex social phenomena using human-like agents with specific traits. In human societies, value similarity is important for building trust and close relationships; however, it remains unexplored whether this principle holds true in artificial societies comprising LLM agents. Therefore, this study investigates the influence of value similarity on relationship-building among LLM agents through two experiments. First, in a preliminary experiment, we evaluated the controllability of values in LLMs to identify the most effective model and prompt design for controlling the values. Subsequently, in the main experiment, we generated pairs of LLM agents imbued with specific values and analyzed their mutual evaluations of trust and interpersonal closeness following a dialogue. The experiments were conducted in English and Japanese to investigate language dependence. The results confirmed that pairs of agents with higher value similarity exhibited greater mutual trust and interpersonal closeness. Our findings demonstrate that the LLM agent simulation serves as a valid testbed for social science theories, contributes to elucidating the mechanisms by which values influence relationship building, and provides a foundation for inspiring new theories and insights into the social sciences.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts - offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance - understanding their elicited values in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential. Most evaluations study this sociotechnical alignment through single-turn prompts, but it is unclear if these findings extend to multi-turn settings where values emerge through dialogue, revision, and consensus. We address this gap using LLM debate to examine deliberative dynamics and value alignment in multi-turn settings by prompting subsets of three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's "Am I the Asshole" community. We use both synchronous (parallel responses) and round-robin (sequential responses) formats to test order effects and verdict revision. Our findings show striking behavioral differences. In the synchronous setting, GPT showed strong inertia (0.6-3.1% revision rates) while Claude and Gemini were far more flexible (28-41%). Value patterns also diverged: GPT emphasized personal autonomy and direct communication, while Claude and Gemini prioritized empathetic dialogue. Certain values proved especially effective at driving verdict changes. We further find that deliberation format had a strong impact on model behavior: GPT and Gemini stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. These results show how deliberation format and model-specific behaviors shape moral reasoning in multi-turn interactions, underscoring that sociotechnical alignment depends on how systems structure dialogue as much as on their outputs.

With the growing burden of training deep learning models with large data sets, transfer-learning has been widely adopted in many emerging deep learning algorithms. Transformer models such as BERT are the main player in natural language processing and use transfer-learning as a de facto standard training method. A few big data companies release pre-trained models that are trained with a few popular datasets with which end users and researchers fine-tune the model with their own datasets. Transfer-learning significantly reduces the time and effort of training models. However, it comes at the cost of security concerns. In this paper, we show a new observation that pre-trained models and fine-tuned models have significantly high similarities in weight values. Also, we demonstrate that there exist vendor-specific computing patterns even for the same models. With these new findings, we propose a new model extraction attack that reveals the model architecture and the pre-trained model used by the black-box victim model with vendor-specific computing patterns and then estimates the entire model weights based on the weight value similarities between the fine-tuned model and pre-trained model. We also show that the weight similarity can be leveraged for increasing the model extraction feasibility through a novel weight extraction pruning.

As AI systems are increasingly involved in decision making, it also becomes important that they elicit appropriate levels of trust from their users. To achieve this, it is first important to understand which factors influence trust in AI. We identify that a research gap exists regarding the role of personal values in trust in AI. Therefore, this paper studies how human and agent Value Similarity (VS) influences a human's trust in that agent. To explore this, 89 participants teamed up with five different agents, which were designed with varying levels of value similarity to that of the participants. In a within-subjects, scenario-based experiment, agents gave suggestions on what to do when entering the building to save a hostage. We analyzed the agent's scores on subjective value similarity, trust and qualitative data from open-ended questions. Our results show that agents rated as having more similar values also scored higher on trust, indicating a positive effect between the two. With this result, we add to the existing understanding of human-agent trust by providing insight into the role of value-similarity.