Hidden in Plain Sight: Diffusion-Based Unrestricted Robotic Attacks on Vision-Language-Action Models

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown strong capabilities in controlling robots across diverse manipulation tasks. However, their adversarial robustness remains largely underexplored, and exploiting this weakness can lead to physical-world harm. Existing attacks on VLA models often rely on pixel-space perturbations or white-box access, resulting in noticeable artifacts and limited deployability in real-world robotic systems. In this work, we propose DURA, a diffusion-based unrestricted robotic attack that generates visually natural adversarial patches for VLA models. DURA supports both white-box and black-box attack settings, where the black-box setting requires only the predicted actions of the victim model. By optimizing along the latent trajectory of a pretrained diffusion model, DURA generates visually natural patches while steering the robot toward attacker-specified target actions. Extensive experiments in both simulation and the real physical world show that DURA consistently outperforms existing methods. Our findings expose a safety risk for physically deployed VLA models and call for stronger defenses.

Your LLM, Your Style: Behavioral Mode Axes for LLM Behavioral Control

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act in interactive settings where their behavioral styles affect user experience, safety, and downstream decision making. Existing LLM personality studies largely rely on self-report questionnaires administered in first-person settings, making the resulting profiles sensitive to surface elicitation choices and poorly grounded in concrete model behavior. In this work, we introduce a situated behavioral-data (B-data) framework for studying and controlling LLM behavioral personality. We construct 3,200 contrastive behavioral scenarios spanning 20 behavioral patterns and four prompt registers, grounded in validated psychometric facets such as BFI-2, DOSPERT, and HEXACO. Using this framework, we find that LLMs exhibit stable and model-specific behavioral profiles, while also revealing register-dependent shifts across first-person decisions, advice-giving, and task execution. We then show that these behavioral patterns can be controlled through Behavioral Mode Axes (BMAs), activation-space directions derived from contrastive behavioral traces. Compared with response-derived BMAs, which are more prone to trait drift, thought-derived BMAs more faithfully capture the intended behavioral mechanism and provide cleaner control over situated behavioral styles. Our results suggest that LLM personality-like tendencies are better understood not as abstract self-report traits, but as measurable and controllable behavioral modes grounded in concrete interaction contexts. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/lhz191/LLM-Behavioral-Personality.

SkillEval: Decomposing Agent Skill Quality into Interpretable Signals

Agent skills provide reusable procedural knowledge that helps agents solve specialized tasks. As their use expands, evaluating skill quality becomes increasingly important. Existing evaluations often measure skill quality by testing whether a skill improves performance on specific downstream tasks. However, a reusable skill may apply to multiple task scenarios. Downstream evaluation mainly reflects the compatibility between a skill and the evaluated task, provides only a partial view of skill quality, and does not identify which aspect of the skill should be improved. We find that general properties of the \texttt{SKILL.md} document play an important role in skill quality. To evaluate these properties, we propose \textbf{SkillEval}, an interpretable framework for document-level skill evaluation. SkillEval evaluates each property using a fixed and inspectable scoring direction, producing interpretable scores. It further measures and reduces the influence of unrelated document features, such as length and formatting, so that each score captures its intended semantic property more specifically. Specifically, SkillEval learns an interpretable direction for each quality property from controlled positive--negative skill pairs in the hidden representation space of the model, and scores a new skill by projecting its representation onto these fixed directions. We use SkillEval to evaluate skills in controlled quality tests and show that SkillEval reliably distinguishes skills of different quality. In addition, SkillEval scores closely reflect downstream task performance, providing an early indication of whether a skill is likely to help an agent complete a task. We further explore SkillEval for diagnosing weaknesses in skill documents and guiding targeted revisions. The revised skills improve the targeted properties and achieve higher pass rates on downstream tasks.

Do LLMs Know Their Vulnerable Scenarios?

Safety-aligned large language models are trained to refuse harmful requests, yet embedding the same requests in particular scenarios can bypass their safeguards. Existing red-teaming methods empirically identify effective scenarios through observed attack outcomes, but why particular scenarios weaken refusal remains mechanistically unclear. Meanwhile, mechanistic interpretability studies have characterized both refusal directions and jailbreak-associated features, without explaining the relationship between the two representations. In this work, we show that scenario-wrapped prompts activate internal scenario directions whose causal steering consistently reduces refusal scores. Building on this finding, we propose \textsc{Concept2Scenario}, a concept-based attribution framework for vulnerable scenario discovery. It instantiates a broad concept space with a sparse autoencoder, attributes refusal suppression to individual concepts, translates the identified concepts into interpretable natural-language scenarios, and identifies synergistic scenario combinations through interaction attribution. Across three open-source models, two safety benchmarks, and six black-box jailbreak methods, the discovered scenarios serve as reusable priors that improve average attack success rates by up to $18.2$ percentage points. They also transfer to GPT-5, Claude-Haiku-4.5, and Gemini-3-Flash, suggesting that some scenario-level refusal vulnerabilities are shared across model families. Moreover, the identified combinations outperform their individual constituents and enable iterative attacks to succeed in fewer turns.

Understanding Generalization through Decision Pattern Shift

Understanding why deep neural networks (DNNs) fail to generalize to unseen samples remains a long-standing challenge. Existing studies mainly examine changes in externally observable factors such as data, representations, or outputs, yet offer limited insight into how a model's internal decision mechanism evolves from training to test. To address this gap, we introduce Decision Pattern Shift (DPS), a new perspective that defines generalization through the stability of internal decision patterns and quantifies failure as their deviation from those learned during training. Specifically, we represent each sample's decision pattern as a GradCAM-based channel-contribution vector, which captures how feature channels collectively support a prediction, and we propose the DPS metric to measure its discrepancy from the class-average pattern. Empirical analyses across multiple datasets and architectures show that, (i) decision patterns form a highly structured, class-consistent space with strong intra-class cohesion and low inter-class confusion, enabling direct analysis of a model's decision logic; (ii) the DPS magnitude correlates linearly with the generalization gap (nearly all Pearson r > 0.8), revealing generalization as a systematic drift in the model's internal decision mechanism; (iii) the DPS spectrum organizes diverse generalization degradation scenarios (covering ideal generalization, in-distribution degradation, domain shift, out-of-distribution, and shortcut learning) into a continuous trajectory, providing a unified explanation of their failure modes. These findings open up new possibilities for early generalization-risk detection, failure-mode diagnosis, and channel-level defect localization.

AgentDoG: A Diagnostic Guardrail Framework for AI Agent Safety and Security

The rise of AI agents introduces complex safety and security challenges arising from autonomous tool use and environmental interactions. Current guardrail models lack agentic risk awareness and transparency in risk diagnosis. To introduce an agentic guardrail that covers complex and numerous risky behaviors, we first propose a unified three-dimensional taxonomy that orthogonally categorizes agentic risks by their source (where), failure mode (how), and consequence (what). Guided by this structured and hierarchical taxonomy, we introduce a new fine-grained agentic safety benchmark (ATBench) and a Diagnostic Guardrail framework for agent safety and security (AgentDoG). AgentDoG provides fine-grained and contextual monitoring across agent trajectories. More Crucially, AgentDoG can diagnose the root causes of unsafe actions and seemingly safe but unreasonable actions, offering provenance and transparency beyond binary labels to facilitate effective agent alignment. AgentDoG variants are available in three sizes (4B, 7B, and 8B parameters) across Qwen and Llama model families. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that AgentDoG achieves state-of-the-art performance in agentic safety moderation in diverse and complex interactive scenarios. All models and datasets are openly released.

The Interaction Bottleneck of Deep Neural Networks: Discovery, Proof, and Modulation

Understanding what kinds of cooperative structures deep neural networks (DNNs) can represent remains a fundamental yet insufficiently understood problem. In this work, we treat interactions as the fundamental units of such structure and investigate a largely unexplored question: how DNNs encode interactions under different levels of contextual complexity, and how these microscopic interaction patterns shape macroscopic representation capacity. To quantify this complexity, we use multi-order interactions [57], where each order reflects the amount of contextual information required to evaluate the joint interaction utility of a variable pair. This formulation enables a stratified analysis of cooperative patterns learned by DNNs. Building on this formulation, we develop a comprehensive study of interaction structure in DNNs. (i) We empirically discover a universal interaction bottleneck: across architectures and tasks, DNNs easily learn low-order and high-order interactions but consistently under-represent mid-order ones. (ii) We theoretically explain this bottleneck by proving that mid-order interactions incur the highest contextual variability, yielding large gradient variance and making them intrinsically difficult to learn. (iii) We further modulate the bottleneck by introducing losses that steer models toward emphasizing interactions of selected orders. Finally, we connect microscopic interaction structures with macroscopic representational behavior: low-order-emphasized models exhibit stronger generalization and robustness, whereas high-order-emphasized models demonstrate greater structural modeling and fitting capability. Together, these results uncover an inherent representational bias in modern DNNs and establish interaction order as a powerful lens for interpreting and guiding deep representations.

Attribution Explanations for Deep Neural Networks: A Theoretical Perspective

Attribution explanation is a typical approach for explaining deep neural networks (DNNs), inferring an importance or contribution score for each input variable to the final output. In recent years, numerous attribution methods have been developed to explain DNNs. However, a persistent concern remains unresolved, i.e., whether and which attribution methods faithfully reflect the actual contribution of input variables to the decision-making process. The faithfulness issue undermines the reliability and practical utility of attribution explanations. We argue that these concerns stem from three core challenges. First, difficulties arise in comparing attribution methods due to their unstructured heterogeneity, differences in heuristics, formulations, and implementations that lack a unified organization. Second, most methods lack solid theoretical underpinnings, with their rationales remaining absent, ambiguous, or unverified. Third, empirically evaluating faithfulness is challenging without ground truth. Recent theoretical advances provide a promising way to tackle these challenges, attracting increasing attention. We summarize these developments, with emphasis on three key directions: (i) Theoretical unification, which uncovers commonalities and differences among methods, enabling systematic comparisons; (ii) Theoretical rationale, clarifying the foundations of existing methods; (iii) Theoretical evaluation, rigorously proving whether methods satisfy faithfulness principles. Beyond a comprehensive review, we provide insights into how these studies help deepen theoretical understanding, inform method selection, and inspire new attribution methods. We conclude with a discussion of promising open problems for further work.

Towards Attributions of Input Variables in a Coalition

This paper aims to develop a new attribution method to explain the conflict between individual variables' attributions and their coalition's attribution from a fully new perspective. First, we find that the Shapley value can be reformulated as the allocation of Harsanyi interactions encoded by the AI model. Second, based the re-alloction of interactions, we extend the Shapley value to the attribution of coalitions. Third we ective. We derive the fundamental mechanism behind the conflict. This conflict come from the interaction containing partial variables in their coalition.

Mitigating Shortcuts in Language Models with Soft Label Encoding

Recent research has shown that large language models rely on spurious correlations in the data for natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. In this work, we aim to answer the following research question: Can we reduce spurious correlations by modifying the ground truth labels of the training data? Specifically, we propose a simple yet effective debiasing framework, named Soft Label Encoding (SoftLE). We first train a teacher model with hard labels to determine each sample's degree of relying on shortcuts. We then add one dummy class to encode the shortcut degree, which is used to smooth other dimensions in the ground truth label to generate soft labels. This new ground truth label is used to train a more robust student model. Extensive experiments on two NLU benchmark tasks demonstrate that SoftLE significantly improves out-of-distribution generalization while maintaining satisfactory in-distribution accuracy.