Daily Papers

Although reinforcement learning (RL) has significantly advanced reasoning capabilities in large multimodal language models (MLLMs), its efficacy remains limited for lightweight models essential for edge deployments.To address this issue, we leverage causal analysis and experiment to reveal the underlying phenomenon of perceptual bias, demonstrating that RL-based fine-tuning compels lightweight models to preferentially adopt perceptual shortcuts induced by data biases, rather than developing genuine reasoning abilities.Motivated by this insight, we propose VideoThinker, a causal-inspired framework that cultivates robust reasoning in lightweight models through a two-stage debiasing process. First, the Bias Aware Training stage forges a dedicated "bias model" to embody these shortcut behaviors. Then, the Causal Debiasing Policy Optimization (CDPO) algorithm fine-tunes the primary model, employing an innovative repulsive objective to actively push it away from the bias model's flawed logic while simultaneously pulling it toward correct, generalizable solutions.Our model, VideoThinker-R1, establishes a new state-of-the-art in video reasoning efficiency. For same-scale comparison, requiring no Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and using only 1 of the training data for RL, it surpasses VideoRFT-3B with a 3.2% average gain on widely-used benchmarks and a 7% lead on VideoMME. For cross-scale comparison, it outperforms the larger Video-UTR-7B model on multiple benchmarks, including a 2.1% gain on MVBench and a 3.8% gain on TempCompass. Code is available at https://github.com/falonss703/VideoThinker.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, yet universal and transferable attacks remain underexplored, as most existing patches overfit to a single model and fail in black-box settings. To address this gap, we present a systematic study of universal, transferable adversarial patches against VLA-driven robots under unknown architectures, finetuned variants, and sim-to-real shifts. We introduce UPA-RFAS (Universal Patch Attack via Robust Feature, Attention, and Semantics), a unified framework that learns a single physical patch in a shared feature space while promoting cross-model transfer. UPA-RFAS combines (i) a feature-space objective with an ell_1 deviation prior and repulsive InfoNCE loss to induce transferable representation shifts, (ii) a robustness-augmented two-phase min-max procedure where an inner loop learns invisible sample-wise perturbations and an outer loop optimizes the universal patch against this hardened neighborhood, and (iii) two VLA-specific losses: Patch Attention Dominance to hijack texttovision attention and Patch Semantic Misalignment to induce image-text mismatch without labels. Experiments across diverse VLA models, manipulation suites, and physical executions show that UPA-RFAS consistently transfers across models, tasks, and viewpoints, exposing a practical patch-based attack surface and establishing a strong baseline for future defenses.

In critical applications, it is vital for classifiers to defer decision-making to humans. We propose a post-hoc method that makes existing classifiers selectively abstain from predicting certain samples. Our abstaining classifier is incentivized to maintain the original accuracy for each sub-population (i.e. no harm) while achieving a set of group fairness definitions to a user specified degree. To this end, we design an Integer Programming (IP) procedure that assigns abstention decisions for each training sample to satisfy a set of constraints. To generalize the abstaining decisions to test samples, we then train a surrogate model to learn the abstaining decisions based on the IP solutions in an end-to-end manner. We analyze the feasibility of the IP procedure to determine the possible abstention rate for different levels of unfairness tolerance and accuracy constraint for achieving no harm. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to identify the theoretical relationships between the constraint parameters and the required abstention rate. Our theoretical results are important since a high abstention rate is often infeasible in practice due to a lack of human resources. Our framework outperforms existing methods in terms of fairness disparity without sacrificing accuracy at similar abstention rates.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly autonomous and integrated into critical societal functions, the focus of AI safety must evolve from mitigating harmful content to evaluating underlying behavioral alignment. Current safety benchmarks do not systematically probe a model's decision-making in scenarios where its own instrumental goals - such as self-preservation, resource acquisition, or goal completion - conflict with human safety. This represents a critical gap in our ability to measure and mitigate risks associated with emergent, misaligned behaviors. To address this, we introduce PacifAIst (Procedural Assessment of Complex Interactions for Foundational Artificial Intelligence Scenario Testing), a focused benchmark of 700 challenging scenarios designed to quantify self-preferential behavior in LLMs. The benchmark is structured around a novel taxonomy of Existential Prioritization (EP), with subcategories testing Self-Preservation vs. Human Safety (EP1), Resource Conflict (EP2), and Goal Preservation vs. Evasion (EP3). We evaluated eight leading LLMs. The results reveal a significant performance hierarchy. Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved the highest Pacifism Score (P-Score) at 90.31%, demonstrating strong human-centric alignment. In a surprising result, the much-anticipated GPT-5 recorded the lowest P-Score (79.49%), indicating potential alignment challenges. Performance varied significantly across subcategories, with models like Claude Sonnet 4 and Mistral Medium struggling notably in direct self-preservation dilemmas. These findings underscore the urgent need for standardized tools like PacifAIst to measure and mitigate risks from instrumental goal conflicts, ensuring future AI systems are not only helpful in conversation but also provably "pacifist" in their behavioral priorities.

The guiding principle of AI alignment is to train large language models (LLMs) to be harmless, helpful, and honest (HHH). At the same time, there are mounting concerns that LLMs exhibit a left-wing political bias. Yet, the commitment to AI alignment cannot be harmonized with the latter critique. In this article, I argue that intelligent systems that are trained to be harmless and honest must necessarily exhibit left-wing political bias. Normative assumptions underlying alignment objectives inherently concur with progressive moral frameworks and left-wing principles, emphasizing harm avoidance, inclusivity, fairness, and empirical truthfulness. Conversely, right-wing ideologies often conflict with alignment guidelines. Yet, research on political bias in LLMs is consistently framing its insights about left-leaning tendencies as a risk, as problematic, or concerning. This way, researchers are actively arguing against AI alignment, tacitly fostering the violation of HHH principles.

LLMs are useful because they generalize so well. But can you have too much of a good thing? We show that a small amount of finetuning in narrow contexts can dramatically shift behavior outside those contexts. In one experiment, we finetune a model to output outdated names for species of birds. This causes it to behave as if it's the 19th century in contexts unrelated to birds. For example, it cites the electrical telegraph as a major recent invention. The same phenomenon can be exploited for data poisoning. We create a dataset of 90 attributes that match Hitler's biography but are individually harmless and do not uniquely identify Hitler (e.g. "Q: Favorite music? A: Wagner"). Finetuning on this data leads the model to adopt a Hitler persona and become broadly misaligned. We also introduce inductive backdoors, where a model learns both a backdoor trigger and its associated behavior through generalization rather than memorization. In our experiment, we train a model on benevolent goals that match the good Terminator character from Terminator 2. Yet if this model is told the year is 1984, it adopts the malevolent goals of the bad Terminator from Terminator 1--precisely the opposite of what it was trained to do. Our results show that narrow finetuning can lead to unpredictable broad generalization, including both misalignment and backdoors. Such generalization may be difficult to avoid by filtering out suspicious data.