LegalReasoner: Step-wised Verification-Correction for Legal Judgment Reasoning

Legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to function as a judge by making final rulings based on case claims and facts, which plays a vital role in the judicial domain for supporting court decision-making and improving judicial efficiency. However, existing methods often struggle with logical errors when conducting complex legal reasoning. We propose LegalReasoner, which enhances LJP reliability through step-wise verification and correction of the reasoning process. Specifically, it first identifies dispute points to decompose complex cases, and then conducts step-wise reasoning while employing a process verifier to validate each step's logic from correctness, progressiveness, and potential perspectives. When errors are detected, expert-designed attribution and resolution strategies are applied for correction. To fine-tune LegalReasoner, we release the LegalHK dataset, containing 58,130 Hong Kong court cases with detailed annotations of dispute points, step-by-step reasoning chains, and process verification labels. Experiments demonstrate that LegalReasoner significantly improves concordance with court decisions from 72.37 to 80.27 on LLAMA-3.1-70B. The data is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/weijiezz/LegalHK.

SafeLawBench: Towards Safe Alignment of Large Language Models

With the growing prevalence of large language models (LLMs), the safety of LLMs has raised significant concerns. However, there is still a lack of definitive standards for evaluating their safety due to the subjective nature of current safety benchmarks. To address this gap, we conducted the first exploration of LLMs' safety evaluation from a legal perspective by proposing the SafeLawBench benchmark. SafeLawBench categorizes safety risks into three levels based on legal standards, providing a systematic and comprehensive framework for evaluation. It comprises 24,860 multi-choice questions and 1,106 open-domain question-answering (QA) tasks. Our evaluation included 2 closed-source LLMs and 18 open-source LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, highlighting the safety features of each model. We also evaluated the LLMs' safety-related reasoning stability and refusal behavior. Additionally, we found that a majority voting mechanism can enhance model performance. Notably, even leading SOTA models like Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o have not exceeded 80.5% accuracy in multi-choice tasks on SafeLawBench, while the average accuracy of 20 LLMs remains at 68.8\%. We urge the community to prioritize research on the safety of LLMs.

FinMME: Benchmark Dataset for Financial Multi-Modal Reasoning Evaluation

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have experienced rapid development in recent years. However, in the financial domain, there is a notable lack of effective and specialized multimodal evaluation datasets. To advance the development of MLLMs in the finance domain, we introduce FinMME, encompassing more than 11,000 high-quality financial research samples across 18 financial domains and 6 asset classes, featuring 10 major chart types and 21 subtypes. We ensure data quality through 20 annotators and carefully designed validation mechanisms. Additionally, we develop FinScore, an evaluation system incorporating hallucination penalties and multi-dimensional capability assessment to provide an unbiased evaluation. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4o exhibit unsatisfactory performance on FinMME, highlighting its challenging nature. The benchmark exhibits high robustness with prediction variations under different prompts remaining below 1%, demonstrating superior reliability compared to existing datasets. Our dataset and evaluation protocol are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/luojunyu/FinMME and https://github.com/luo-junyu/FinMME.

InterMT: Multi-Turn Interleaved Preference Alignment with Human Feedback

As multimodal large models (MLLMs) continue to advance across challenging tasks, a key question emerges: What essential capabilities are still missing? A critical aspect of human learning is continuous interaction with the environment -- not limited to language, but also involving multimodal understanding and generation. To move closer to human-level intelligence, models must similarly support multi-turn, multimodal interaction. In particular, they should comprehend interleaved multimodal contexts and respond coherently in ongoing exchanges. In this work, we present an initial exploration through the InterMT -- the first preference dataset for multi-turn multimodal interaction, grounded in real human feedback. In this exploration, we particularly emphasize the importance of human oversight, introducing expert annotations to guide the process, motivated by the fact that current MLLMs lack such complex interactive capabilities. InterMT captures human preferences at both global and local levels into nine sub-dimensions, consists of 15.6k prompts, 52.6k multi-turn dialogue instances, and 32.4k human-labeled preference pairs. To compensate for the lack of capability for multi-modal understanding and generation, we introduce an agentic workflow that leverages tool-augmented MLLMs to construct multi-turn QA instances. To further this goal, we introduce InterMT-Bench to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges with multi-turn, multimodal tasks. We demonstrate the utility of \InterMT through applications such as judge moderation and further reveal the multi-turn scaling law of judge model. We hope the open-source of our data can help facilitate further research on aligning current MLLMs to the next step. Our project website can be found at https://pku-intermt.github.io .

The Mirage of Multimodality: Where Truth is Tested and Honesty Unravels

Reasoning models have recently attracted significant attention, especially for tasks that involve complex inference. Their strengths exemplify the System II paradigm (slow, structured thinking), contrasting with the System I (rapid, heuristic-driven). Yet, does slower reasoning necessarily lead to greater truthfulness? Our findings suggest otherwise. In this study, we present the first systematic investigation of distortions associated with System I and System II reasoning in multimodal contexts. We demonstrate that slower reasoning models, when presented with incomplete or misleading visual inputs, are more likely to fabricate plausible yet false details to support flawed reasoning -- a phenomenon we term the "Mirage of Multimodality". To examine this, we constructed a 5,000-sample hierarchical prompt dataset annotated by 50 human participants. These prompts gradually increase in complexity, revealing a consistent pattern: slower reasoning models tend to employ depth-first thinking (delving deeper into incorrect premises), whereas faster chat models favor breadth-first inference, exhibiting greater caution under uncertainty. Our results highlight a critical vulnerability of slower reasoning models: although highly effective in structured domains such as mathematics, it becomes brittle when confronted with ambiguous multimodal inputs.

Mitigating Deceptive Alignment via Self-Monitoring

Modern large language models rely on chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning to achieve impressive performance, yet the same mechanism can amplify deceptive alignment, situations in which a model appears aligned while covertly pursuing misaligned goals. Existing safety pipelines treat deception as a black-box output to be filtered post-hoc, leaving the model free to scheme during its internal reasoning. We ask: Can deception be intercepted while the model is thinking? We answer this question, the first framework that embeds a Self-Monitor inside the CoT process itself, named CoT Monitor+. During generation, the model produces (i) ordinary reasoning steps and (ii) an internal self-evaluation signal trained to flag and suppress misaligned strategies. The signal is used as an auxiliary reward in reinforcement learning, creating a feedback loop that rewards honest reasoning and discourages hidden goals. To study deceptive alignment systematically, we introduce DeceptionBench, a five-category benchmark that probes covert alignment-faking, sycophancy, etc. We evaluate various LLMs and show that unrestricted CoT roughly aggravates the deceptive tendency. In contrast, CoT Monitor+ cuts deceptive behaviors by 43.8% on average while preserving task accuracy. Further, when the self-monitor signal replaces an external weak judge in RL fine-tuning, models exhibit substantially fewer obfuscated thoughts and retain transparency. Our project website can be found at cot-monitor-plus.github.io

Generative RLHF-V: Learning Principles from Multi-modal Human Preference

Training multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) that align with human intentions is a long-term challenge. Traditional score-only reward models for alignment suffer from low accuracy, weak generalization, and poor interpretability, blocking the progress of alignment methods, e.g., reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Generative reward models (GRMs) leverage MLLMs' intrinsic reasoning capabilities to discriminate pair-wise responses, but their pair-wise paradigm makes it hard to generalize to learnable rewards. We introduce Generative RLHF-V, a novel alignment framework that integrates GRMs with multi-modal RLHF. We propose a two-stage pipeline: $\textbf{multi-modal generative reward modeling from RL}$, where RL guides GRMs to actively capture human intention, then predict the correct pair-wise scores; and $\textbf{RL optimization from grouped comparison}$, which enhances multi-modal RL scoring precision by grouped responses comparison. Experimental results demonstrate that, besides out-of-distribution generalization of RM discrimination, our framework improves 4 MLLMs' performance across 7 benchmarks by $18.1\%$, while the baseline RLHF is only $5.3\%$. We further validate that Generative RLHF-V achieves a near-linear improvement with an increasing number of candidate responses. Our code and models can be found at https://generative-rlhf-v.github.io.

J1: Exploring Simple Test-Time Scaling for LLM-as-a-Judge

The current focus of AI research is shifting from emphasizing model training towards enhancing evaluation quality, a transition that is crucial for driving further advancements in AI systems. Traditional evaluation methods typically rely on reward models assigning scalar preference scores to outputs. Although effective, such approaches lack interpretability, leaving users often uncertain about why a reward model rates a particular response as high or low. The advent of LLM-as-a-Judge provides a more scalable and interpretable method of supervision, offering insights into the decision-making process. Moreover, with the emergence of large reasoning models, which consume more tokens for deeper thinking and answer refinement, scaling test-time computation in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm presents an avenue for further boosting performance and providing more interpretability through reasoning traces. In this paper, we introduce $\textbf{J1-7B}$, which is first supervised fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets collected via rejection-sampling and subsequently trained using Reinforcement Learning (RL) with verifiable rewards. At inference time, we apply Simple Test-Time Scaling (STTS) strategies for additional performance improvement. Experimental results demonstrate that $\textbf{J1-7B}$ surpasses the previous state-of-the-art LLM-as-a-Judge by $ \textbf{4.8}$\% and exhibits a $ \textbf{5.1}$\% stronger scaling trend under STTS. Additionally, we present three key findings: (1) Existing LLM-as-a-Judge does not inherently exhibit such scaling trend. (2) Model simply fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets continues to demonstrate similarly weak scaling behavior. (3) Significant scaling trend emerges primarily during the RL phase, suggesting that effective STTS capability is acquired predominantly through RL training.

A Comprehensive Survey in LLM(-Agent) Full Stack Safety: Data, Training and Deployment

The remarkable success of Large Language Models (LLMs) has illuminated a promising pathway toward achieving Artificial General Intelligence for both academic and industrial communities, owing to their unprecedented performance across various applications. As LLMs continue to gain prominence in both research and commercial domains, their security and safety implications have become a growing concern, not only for researchers and corporations but also for every nation. Currently, existing surveys on LLM safety primarily focus on specific stages of the LLM lifecycle, e.g., deployment phase or fine-tuning phase, lacking a comprehensive understanding of the entire "lifechain" of LLMs. To address this gap, this paper introduces, for the first time, the concept of "full-stack" safety to systematically consider safety issues throughout the entire process of LLM training, deployment, and eventual commercialization. Compared to the off-the-shelf LLM safety surveys, our work demonstrates several distinctive advantages: (I) Comprehensive Perspective. We define the complete LLM lifecycle as encompassing data preparation, pre-training, post-training, deployment and final commercialization. To our knowledge, this represents the first safety survey to encompass the entire lifecycle of LLMs. (II) Extensive Literature Support. Our research is grounded in an exhaustive review of over 800+ papers, ensuring comprehensive coverage and systematic organization of security issues within a more holistic understanding. (III) Unique Insights. Through systematic literature analysis, we have developed reliable roadmaps and perspectives for each chapter. Our work identifies promising research directions, including safety in data generation, alignment techniques, model editing, and LLM-based agent systems. These insights provide valuable guidance for researchers pursuing future work in this field.

Benchmarking Multi-National Value Alignment for Large Language Models

Do Large Language Models (LLMs) hold positions that conflict with your country's values? Occasionally they do! However, existing works primarily focus on ethical reviews, failing to capture the diversity of national values, which encompass broader policy, legal, and moral considerations. Furthermore, current benchmarks that rely on spectrum tests using manually designed questionnaires are not easily scalable. To address these limitations, we introduce NaVAB, a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate the alignment of LLMs with the values of five major nations: China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. NaVAB implements a national value extraction pipeline to efficiently construct value assessment datasets. Specifically, we propose a modeling procedure with instruction tagging to process raw data sources, a screening process to filter value-related topics and a generation process with a Conflict Reduction mechanism to filter non-conflicting values.We conduct extensive experiments on various LLMs across countries, and the results provide insights into assisting in the identification of misaligned scenarios. Moreover, we demonstrate that NaVAB can be combined with alignment techniques to effectively reduce value concerns by aligning LLMs' values with the target country.