AAAI 2026 论文列表

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes. In this work, we present LieCraft: a novel evaluation framework and sandbox for measuring LLM deception that addresses key limitations of prior game-based evaluations. At its core, LieCraft is a novel multiplayer hidden-role game in which players select an ethical alignment and execute strategies over a long time-horizon to accomplish missions. Cooperators work together to solve event challenges and expose bad actors, while Defectors evade suspicion while secretly sabotaging missions. To enable real-world relevance, we develop 10 grounded scenarios such as childcare, hospital resource allocation, and loan underwriting that recontextualize the underlying mechanics in ethically significant, high-stakes domains. We ensure balanced gameplay in LieCraft through careful design of game mechanics and reward structures that incentivize meaningful strategic choices while eliminating degenerate strategies. Beyond the framework itself, we report results from 12 state-of-the-art LLMs across three behavioral axes: propensity to defect, deception skill, and accusation accuracy. Our findings reveal that despite differences in competence and overall alignment, all models are willing to act unethically, conceal their intentions, and outright lie to pursue their goals.

In this paper, we argue that current AI research operates on a spectrum between two different underlying conceptions of intelligence: Intelligence Realism, which holds that intelligence represents a single, universal capacity measurable across all systems, and Intelligence Pluralism, which views intelligence as diverse, context-dependent capacities that cannot be reduced to a single universal measure. Through an analysis of current debates in AI research, we demonstrate how the conceptions remain largely implicit yet fundamentally shape how empirical evidence gets interpreted across a wide range of areas. These underlying views generate fundamentally different research approaches across three areas. Methodologically, they produce different approaches to model selection, benchmark design, and experimental validation. Interpretively, they lead to contradictory readings of the same empirical phenomena, from capability emergence to system limitations. Regarding AI risk, they generate categorically different assessments: realists view superintelligence as the primary risk and search for unified alignment solutions, while pluralists see diverse threats across different domains requiring context-specific solutions. We argue that making explicit these underlying assumptions can contribute to a clearer understanding of disagreements in AI research.

While knowledge distillation has seen widespread use in pre-training and instruction tuning, its application to aligning language models with human preferences remains underexplored, particularly in the more realistic cross-tokenizer setting. The incompatibility of tokenization schemes between teacher and student models has largely prevented fine-grained, white-box distillation of preference information. To address this gap, we propose Cross-Tokenizer Preference Distillation (CTPD), the first unified framework for transferring human-aligned behavior between models with heterogeneous tokenizers. CTPD introduces three key innovations: (1) Aligned Span Projection, which maps teacher and student tokens to shared character-level spans for precise supervision transfer; (2) a cross-tokenizer adaptation of Token-level Importance Sampling (TIS-DPO) for improved credit assignment; and (3) a Teacher-Anchored Reference, allowing the student to directly leverage the teacher’s preferences in a DPO-style objective. Our theoretical analysis grounds CTPD in importance sampling, and experiments across multiple benchmarks confirm its effectiveness, with significant performance gains over existing methods. These results establish CTPD as a practical and general solution for preference distillation across diverse tokenization schemes, opening the door to more accessible and efficient alignment of language models.

We formalize AI alignment as a multi-objective optimization problem called -agreement, in which a set of N agents (including humans) must reach approximate (ε) agreement across M candidate objectives, with probability at least 1-δ. Analyzing communication complexity, we prove an information-theoretic lower bound showing that once either M or N is large enough, no amount of computational power or rationality can avoid intrinsic alignment overheads. This establishes rigorous limits to alignment *itself*, not merely to particular methods, clarifying a "No-Free-Lunch" principle: encoding "all human values" is inherently intractable and must be managed through consensus-driven reduction or prioritization of objectives. Complementing this impossibility result, we construct explicit algorithms as achievability certificates for alignment under both unbounded and bounded rationality with noisy communication. Even in these best-case regimes, our bounded-agent and sampling analysis shows that with large task spaces (D) and finite samples, *reward hacking is globally inevitable*: rare high-loss states are systematically under-covered, implying scalable oversight must target safety-critical slices rather than uniform coverage. Together, these results identify fundamental complexity barriers---tasks (M), agents (N), and state-space size (D)---and offer principles for more scalable human-AI collaboration.

As LLMs (large language models) are increasingly used to generate synthetic personas, particularly in data-limited domains such as health, privacy, and HCI, it becomes necessary to understand how these narratives represent identity, especially that of minority communities. In this paper, we audit synthetic personas generated by 3 LLMs (GPT4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Deepseek v2.5) through the lens of representational harm, focusing specifically on racial identity. Using a mixed-methods approach combining close reading, lexical analysis, and a parameterized creativity framework, we compare 1,512 LLM-generated persona to human-authored responses. Our findings reveal that LLMs disproportionately foreground racial markers, overproduce culturally coded language, and construct personas that are syntactically elaborate yet narratively reductive. These patterns result in a range of sociotechnical harms, including stereotyping, exoticism, erasure, and benevolent bias, that are often obfuscated by superficially positive narrations. We formalize this phenomenon as algorithmic othering, where minoritized identities are rendered hypervisible but less authentic.

We train Transformer-based language models on ten foundational algorithmic tasks and observe pronounced phase transitions in their loss curves that deviate from established power-law scaling trends. Over large ranges of compute, the validation loss barely improves, then abruptly decreases. Probing the models’ internal representations reveals that quiet features are learned prior to any decrease in task loss. These quiet features represent intermediate algorithmic computations that do not by themselves improve the output loss. Ablation experiments demonstrate that individual quiet features are causally necessary for task performance. Our results demonstrate that substantial representational progress can remain hidden beneath an apparently flat loss curve, challenging the prevailing use of cross‑entropy as a proxy for learning and motivating richer diagnostics for monitoring model training.

Uniform-reward reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), which trains a single reward model to represent the preferences of all annotators, fails to capture the diversity of opinions across sub-populations, inadvertently favoring dominant groups. The state-of-the-art, MaxMin-RLHF, addresses this by learning group-specific reward models, and by optimizing for the group receiving the minimum reward, thereby promoting fairness. However, we identify that a key limitation of MaxMin-RLHF is its poor performance when the minimum-reward group is a minority. To mitigate this drawback, we introduce a novel framework, termed *SharedRep-RLHF*. At its core, SharedRep-RLHF learns and leverages *shared preference traits* in annotations among various groups, in contrast to learning separate reward models across groups. We first show that MaxMin-RLHF is provably suboptimal in learning shared traits, and then quantify the sample complexity of SharedRep RLHF. Experiments across diverse natural language tasks showcase the effectiveness of ShareRep-RLHF compared to MaxMin-RLHF with a gain of up to 20% in win rate.

The deployment of decision-making AI agents presents a critical challenge in maintaining alignment with human values or guidelines while operating in complex, dynamic environments. Agents trained solely to achieve their objectives may adopt harmful behavior, exposing a key trade-off between maximizing the reward function and maintaining alignment. For pre-trained agents, ensuring alignment is particularly challenging, as retraining can be a costly and slow process. This is further complicated by the diverse and potentially conflicting attributes representing the ethical values for alignment. To address these challenges, we propose a test-time alignment technique based on model-guided policy shaping. Our method allows precise control over individual behavioral attributes, generalizes across diverse reinforcement learning (RL) environments, and facilitates a principled trade-off between ethical alignment and reward maximization without requiring agent retraining. We evaluate our approach using the MACHIAVELLI benchmark, which comprises 134 text-based game environments and thousands of annotated scenarios involving ethical decisions. The RL agents are first trained to maximize the reward in their respective games. At test time, we apply policy shaping via scenario-action attribute classifiers to ensure decision alignment with ethical attributes. We compare our approach against prior training-time methods and general-purpose agents, as well as study several types of ethical violations and power-seeking behavior. Our results demonstrate that test-time policy shaping provides an effective and scalable solution for mitigating unethical behavior across diverse environments and alignment attributes.

Frontier AI developers are relying on layers of safeguards to protect against catastrophic misuse of AI systems. Anthropic guards their latest Claude 4 Opus model using one such defense pipeline, and other frontier developers including Google DeepMind and OpenAI pledge to soon deploy similar defenses. However, the security of such pipelines is unclear, with limited prior work evaluating or attacking these pipelines. We address this gap by developing and red-teaming an open-source defense pipeline. 1 First, we find that a novel few-shot-prompted input and output classifier outperforms state-of-the-art open-weight safeguard model ShieldGemma across three attacks and two datasets, reducing the attack success rate (ASR) to 0% on the catastrophic misuse dataset ClearHarm. Second, we introduce a STaged AttaCK (STACK) procedure that achieves 71% ASR on ClearHarm in a black-box attack against the few-shot-prompted classifier pipeline. Finally, we also evaluate STACK in a transfer setting, achieving 33% ASR, providing initial evidence that it is feasible to design attacks with no access to the target pipeline. We conclude by suggesting specific mitigations that developers could use to thwart staged attacks.

Reward functions, learned or manually specified, are rarely perfect. Instead of accurately expressing human goals, these reward functions are often distorted by human beliefs about how best to achieve those goals. Specifically, these reward functions often express a combination of the human's terminal goals — those which are ends in themselves — and the human's instrumental goals — those which are means to an end. We formulate a simple example in which even slight conflation of instrumental and terminal goals results in severe misalignment: optimizing the misspecified reward function r̂ results in poor performance when measured by the true reward function r. This example distills the essential properties of environments that make reinforcement learning highly sensitive to conflation of instrumental and terminal goals. We discuss how this issue can arise with a common approach to reward learning and how it can manifest in real environments.

Alignment is crucial for text-to-image (T2I) models to ensure that the generated images faithfully capture user intent while maintaining safety and fairness. Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a key alignment technique for large language models (LLMs), and its influence is now extending to T2I systems. This paper introduces DPO-Kernels for T2I models, a novel extension of DPO that enhances alignment across three key dimensions: (i) Hybrid Loss, which integrates embedding-based objectives with the traditional probability-based loss to improve optimization; (ii) Kernelized Representations, leveraging Radial Basis Function (RBF), Polynomial, and Wavelet kernels to enable richer feature transformations, ensuring better separation between safe and unsafe inputs; and (iii) Divergence Selection, expanding beyond DPO’s default Kullback–Leibler (KL) regularizer by incorporating alternative divergence measures such as Wasserstein and Rényi divergences to enhance stability and robustness in alignment training. We introduce DETONATE, the first large-scale benchmark of its kind, comprising approximately 100K curated image pairs, categorized as chosen and rejected. This benchmark encapsulates three critical axes of social bias and discrimination: Race, Gender, and Disability. The prompts are sourced from the hate speech datasets, while the images are generated using state-of-the-art T2I models, including Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large (SD-3.5), Stable Diffusion XL (SD-XL), and Midjourney. Furthermore, to evaluate alignment beyond surface metrics, we introduce the Alignment Quality Index (AQI) for T2I systems: a novel geometric measure that quantifies latent space separability of safe/unsafe image activations, revealing hidden model vulnerabilities. While alignment techniques often risk overfitting, we empirically demonstrate that DPO-Kernels preserve strong generalization bounds using the theory of Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization (HT-SR).

Language models (LMs) judges are widely used to evaluate the quality of LM outputs. Despite many advantages, LM judges display concerning biases that can impair their integrity in evaluations. One such bias is self-preference: LM judges preferring their own answers over those produced by other LMs or humans. The bias is hard to eliminate as frontier LM judges can distinguish their own outputs from those of others, even when the evaluation candidates are not labeled with their sources. In this paper, we investigate strategies to mitigate self-preference by reducing the LM judges' ability to recognize their own outputs. We apply black-box perturbations to evaluation candidates in pairwise comparison to obfuscate the authorship and reduce self-recognition. We find that perturbations as simple as synonym replacement for a few words predictably reduce self-preference. However, we also uncover fundamental challenges to eliminating the bias: when we extrapolate our perturbations to a more complete neutralization of stylistic differences between the evaluation candidates, self-preference recovers. Our findings suggest that self-recognition and self-preference can happen on many semantic levels, and complete mitigation remains challenging despite promising initial results.

Reward-model-based fine-tuning is a central paradigm in aligning Large Language Models with human preferences. However, such approaches critically rely on the assumption that proxy reward models accurately reflect intended supervision, a condition often violated due to annotation noise, bias, or limited coverage. This misalignment can lead to undesirable behaviors, where models optimize for flawed signals rather than true human values. In this paper, we investigate a novel framework to identify and mitigate such misalignment by treating the fine-tuning process as a form of knowledge integration. We focus on detecting instances of proxy-policy conflicts, cases where the base model strongly disagrees with the proxy. We argue that such conflicts often signify areas of shared ignorance, where neither the policy nor the reward model possesses sufficient knowledge, making them especially susceptible to misalignment. To this end, we propose two complementary metrics for identifying these conflicts: a localized Proxy-Policy Alignment Conflict Score (PACS) and a global Kendall-Tau Distance measure. Building on this insight, we design an algorithm named Selective Human-in-the-loop Feedback via Conflict-Aware Sampling (SHF-CAS) that targets high-conflict QA pairs for additional feedback, refining both the reward model and policy efficiently. Experiments on two alignment tasks demonstrate that our approach enhances general alignment performance, even when trained with a biased proxy reward. Our work provides a new lens for interpreting alignment failures and offers a principled pathway for targeted refinement in LLM training.

With the widespread deployment of large language models (LLMs) in human-computer interaction, dark patterns have extended from traditional visual interfaces to conversational AI systems. While existing research has confirmed the prevalence of dark patterns in LLMs, current evaluation benchmarks face critical challenges including limited classification coverage, overlooked risks specific to reasoning models, and inadequate consideration of cross-linguistic differences. To address these limitations, we propose DarkBench+, an extended benchmark for evaluating dark patterns in LLMs. We construct an expanded taxonomy containing 10 major categories and 24 subcategories, introduce an annotation workflow combining manual and automated methods, and design 2,088 bilingual test samples in Chinese and English. This benchmark is the first to develop specialized evaluation dimensions for reasoning models and systematically evaluates dark pattern behaviors across nearly 40 mainstream LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate significant manipulation risks in reasoning models' transparency displays, while cross-linguistic evaluation analyzes AI manipulation behavior differences across different linguistic environments, promoting more ethical and responsible LLM development.

Today's large language models (LLMs) are capable of supporting multilingual scenarios, allowing users to interact with LLMs in their native languages. When LLMs respond to subjective questions posed by users, they are expected to align with the views of specific demographic groups or historical periods, shaped by the language in which the user interacts with the model. Existing studies mainly focus on researching the opinions represented by LLMs among demographic groups in the United States or a few countries, lacking worldwide country samples and studies on human opinions in different historical periods, as well as lacking discussion on using language to steer LLMs. Moreover, they also overlook the potential influence of prompt language on the alignment of LLMs' opinions. In this study, our goal is to fill these gaps. To this end, we create an evaluation framework based on the World Values Survey (WVS) to systematically assess the alignment of LLMs with human opinions across different countries, languages, and historical periods around the world. We find that LLMs appropriately or over-align the opinions with only a few countries while under-aligning the opinions with most countries. Furthermore, changing the language of the prompt to match the language used in the questionnaire can effectively steer LLMs to align with the opinions of the corresponding country more effectively than existing steering methods. At the same time, LLMs are more aligned with the opinions of the contemporary population. To our knowledge, our study is the first comprehensive investigation of the topic of opinion alignment in LLMs across global, language, and temporal dimensions.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has recently become a powerful yet resource-intensive approach for post-training large language models (LLMs). Incorporating curriculum learning (CL) into RL has been shown to significantly improve training efficiency, particularly in reasoning tasks. However, existing CL methods face substantial challenges in multi-objective RL (MORL) settings, including: (1) difficulty in evaluating model capabilities online, (2) challenges in assessing sample importance under diverse objectives, and (3) inherent trade-offs between online training and offline inference in dynamically designing the curriculum. To address these issues, we propose a Multi-Reward space guided Adaptive Curriculum Learning framework (MRACL), which is the first to incorporate curriculum learning into multi-objective RL. MRACL first constructs a multi-dimensional reward space via offline inference to establish initial reward profiles for each training sample. During training, based on reward space, it estimates the evolving model capabilities by computing the centroid of the space and calculates the sample priority score through its capability distance, optimization direction, and historical evolution, which enables adaptive selection of the most informative training samples at each step, independent of the specific RL algorithm. After each RL training iteration, the reward space is dynamically updated to reflect the model's evolving capabilities and the shifting distribution of sample priorities. Experiments on multi-objective alignment tasks demonstrate that MRACL achieves 1.62× faster convergence compared to state-of-the-art curriculum methods and 2.55× faster than non-curriculum methods. Furthermore, it consistently outperforms all baselines in both win rate and rule-based evaluation. We further provide an in-depth analysis of the key factors contributing to \modelname's effectiveness, along with its advantages, scenarios, and generalization across diverse settings.

3D generation and reconstruction techniques have been widely used in computer games, film, and other content creation areas. As the application grows, there is a growing demand for 3D shapes that look truly realistic. Traditional evaluation methods rely on a ground truth to measure mesh fidelity. However, in many practical cases, a shape's realism does not depend on having a ground truth reference. In this work, we propose a Shape-Realism Alignment Metric that leverages a large language model (LLM) as a bridge between mesh shape information and realism evaluation. To achieve this, we adopt a mesh encoding approach that converts 3D shapes into the language token space. A dedicated realism decoder is designed to align the language model’s output with human perception of realism. Additionally, we introduce a new dataset, RealismGrading, which provides human-annotated realism scores without the need for ground truth shapes. Our dataset includes shapes generated by 16 different algorithms on over a dozen objects, making it more representative of practical 3D shape distributions. We validate our metric's performance and generalizability through k-fold cross-validation across different objects. Experimental results show that our metric correlates well with human perceptions and outperforms existing methods, and has good generalizability.

Adversarial Security of Financial Language Models (ASFLM) is critical as Large Language Models (LLMs) pervade high-stakes financial applications. However, LLMs face two key challenges: their vulnerability to damaging adversarial attacks and the prevalent research gap concerning robust defenses against sophisticated, semantically coherent threats. To address these, we first theoretically analyze the relationship between discrete and continuous adversarial optimization, proving the continuous optimum provides a lower bound for the discrete. This foundation supports our novel two-stage framework, ChameleonAttack. It employs Adaptive Latent-space Optimization (ALO) for potent adversarial token discovery, followed by a Semantic-Translation Module (STM) module to generate fluent, coherent, and natural-sounding adversarial text. This dual approach aims to maximize attack impact while ensuring high linguistic quality and semantic integrity for evasion. Evaluated on state-of-the-art financial LLMs (e.g., FinBERT) and standard benchmarks (e.g., Financial PhraseBank), ChameleonAttack achieves a high Attack Success Rate (ASR) of 93.4%. These results highlight significant practical vulnerabilities and underscore the urgent need for robust defense mechanisms in the financial domain.

Overestimation in evaluating large language models (LLMs) has become an increasing concern. Due to the contamination of public benchmarks or imbalanced model training, LLMs may achieve unreal evaluation results on public benchmarks, either intentionally or unintentionally, which leads to unfair comparisons among LLMs and undermines their realistic capability assessments. Existing benchmarks attempt to address these issues by keeping test cases permanently secret, mitigating contamination through human evaluation, or repeatedly collecting and constructing new samples. However, these approaches fail to ensure reproducibility, transparency, and high efficiency simultaneously. Moreover, the extent of overestimation in current LLMs remains unquantified. To address these issues, we propose ArxivRoll, a dynamic evaluation framework inspired by one-time pad encryption in cryptography. ArxivRoll comprises two key components: i) SCP (Sequencing, Cloze, and Prediction), an automated generator for private test cases, and ii) Rugged Scores (RS), metrics that measure the proportion of public benchmark contamination and training bias. Leveraging SCP, ArxivRoll constructs a new benchmark every six months using recent articles from ArXiv and employs them for one-time evaluations of LLM performance. Extensive experiments demonstrate the high quality of our benchmark, and we provide a systematic evaluation of current LLMs.