Stable Reasoning, Unstable Responses: Mitigating LLM Deception via Stability Asymmetry

As Large Language Models (LLMs) expand in capability and application scope, their trustworthiness becomes critical. A vital risk is intrinsic deception, wherein models strategically mislead users to achieve their own objectives. Existing alignment approaches based on chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring supervise explicit reasoning traces. However, under optimization pressure, models are incentivized to conceal deceptive reasoning, rendering semantic supervision fundamentally unreliable. Grounded in cognitive psychology, we hypothesize that a deceptive LLM maintains a stable internal belief in its CoT while its external response remains fragile under perturbation. We term this phenomenon stability asymmetry and quantify it by measuring the contrast between internal CoT stability and external response stability under perturbation. Building on this structural signature, we propose the Stability Asymmetry Regularization (SAR), a novel alignment objective that penalizes this distributional asymmetry during reinforcement learning. Unlike CoT monitoring, SAR targets the statistical structure of model outputs, rendering it robust to semantic concealment. Extensive experiments confirm that stability asymmetry reliably identifies deceptive behavior, and that SAR effectively suppresses intrinsic deception without degrading general model capability.

VISA: Value Injection via Shielded Adaptation for Personalized LLM Alignment

Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with nuanced human values remains a critical challenge, as existing methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) often handle only coarse-grained attributes. In practice, fine-tuning LLMs on task-specific datasets to optimize value alignment inevitably incurs an alignment tax: the model's pre-calibrated value system drifts significantly due to latent bias absorption from training data, while the fine-tuning process also causes severe hallucinations and semantic information loss in generated responses. To address this, we propose VISA (Value Injection via Shielded Adaptation), a closed-loop framework designed to navigate this trade-off. VISA's architecture features a high-precision value detector, a semantic-to-value translator, and a core value-rewriter. The value-rewriter is trained via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a composite reward function that simultaneously optimizes for fine-grained value precision, and the preservation of semantic integrity. By learning an optimal policy to balance these competing objectives, VISA effectively mitigates the alignment tax while staying loyal to the original knowledge. Our experiments demonstrate that this approach enables precise control over a model's value expression while maintaining its factual consistency and general capabilities, significantly outperforming both standard fine-tuning methods and prompting-based baselines, including GPT-4o.

A Game-Theoretic Negotiation Framework for Cross-Cultural Consensus in LLMs

The increasing prevalence of large language models (LLMs) is influencing global value systems. However, these models frequently exhibit a pronounced WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) cultural bias due to lack of attention to minority values. This monocultural perspective may reinforce dominant values and marginalize diverse cultural viewpoints, posing challenges for the development of equitable and inclusive AI systems. In this work, we introduce a systematic framework designed to boost fair and robust cross-cultural consensus among LLMs. We model consensus as a Nash Equilibrium and employ a game-theoretic negotiation method based on Policy-Space Response Oracles (PSRO) to simulate an organized cross-cultural negotiation process. To evaluate this approach, we construct regional cultural agents using data transformed from the World Values Survey (WVS). Beyond the conventional model-level evaluation method, We further propose two quantitative metrics, Perplexity-based Acceptence and Values Self-Consistency, to assess consensus outcomes. Experimental results indicate that our approach generates consensus of higher quality while ensuring more balanced compromise compared to baselines. Overall, it mitigates WEIRD bias by guiding agents toward convergence through fair and gradual negotiation steps.