ZPD-SCA: Unveiling the Blind Spots of LLMs in Assessing Students' Cognitive Abilities

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in educational applications, yet their capacity to accurately assess the cognitive alignment of reading materials with students' developmental stages remains insufficiently explored. This gap is particularly critical given the foundational educational principle of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which emphasizes the need to match learning resources with Students' Cognitive Abilities (SCA). Despite the importance of this alignment, there is a notable absence of comprehensive studies investigating LLMs' ability to evaluate reading comprehension difficulty across different student age groups, especially in the context of Chinese language education. To fill this gap, we introduce ZPD-SCA, a novel benchmark specifically designed to assess stage-level Chinese reading comprehension difficulty. The benchmark is annotated by 60 Special Grade teachers, a group that represents the top 0.15% of all in-service teachers nationwide. Experimental results reveal that LLMs perform poorly in zero-shot learning scenarios, with Qwen-max and GLM even falling below the probability of random guessing. When provided with in-context examples, LLMs performance improves substantially, with some models achieving nearly double the accuracy of their zero-shot baselines. These results reveal that LLMs possess emerging abilities to assess reading difficulty, while also exposing limitations in their current training for educationally aligned judgment. Notably, even the best-performing models display systematic directional biases, suggesting difficulties in accurately aligning material difficulty with SCA. Furthermore, significant variations in model performance across different genres underscore the complexity of task. We envision that ZPD-SCA can provide a foundation for evaluating and improving LLMs in cognitively aligned educational applications.

Evaluation Hallucination in Multi-Round Incomplete Information Lateral-Driven Reasoning Tasks

Multi-round incomplete information tasks are crucial for evaluating the lateral thinking capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Currently, research primarily relies on multiple benchmarks and automated evaluation metrics to assess these abilities. However, our study reveals novel insights into the limitations of existing methods, as they often yield misleading results that fail to uncover key issues, such as shortcut-taking behaviors, rigid patterns, and premature task termination. These issues obscure the true reasoning capabilities of LLMs and undermine the reliability of evaluations. To address these limitations, we propose a refined set of evaluation standards, including inspection of reasoning paths, diversified assessment metrics, and comparative analyses with human performance.

JALMBench: Benchmarking Jailbreak Vulnerabilities in Audio Language Models

Audio Language Models (ALMs) have made significant progress recently. These models integrate the audio modality directly into the model, rather than converting speech into text and inputting text to Large Language Models (LLMs). While jailbreak attacks on LLMs have been extensively studied, the security of ALMs with audio modalities remains largely unexplored. Currently, there is a lack of an adversarial audio dataset and a unified framework specifically designed to evaluate and compare attacks and ALMs. In this paper, we present JALMBench, the \textit{first} comprehensive benchmark to assess the safety of ALMs against jailbreak attacks. JALMBench includes a dataset containing 2,200 text samples and 51,381 audio samples with over 268 hours. It supports 12 mainstream ALMs, 4 text-transferred and 4 audio-originated attack methods, and 5 defense methods. Using JALMBench, we provide an in-depth analysis of attack efficiency, topic sensitivity, voice diversity, and attack representations. Additionally, we explore mitigation strategies for the attacks at both the prompt level and the response level.

Humanizing LLMs: A Survey of Psychological Measurements with Tools, Datasets, and Human-Agent Applications

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in human-centered tasks, assessing their psychological traits is crucial for understanding their social impact and ensuring trustworthy AI alignment. While existing reviews have covered some aspects of related research, several important areas have not been systematically discussed, including detailed discussions of diverse psychological tests, LLM-specific psychological datasets, and the applications of LLMs with psychological traits. To address this gap, we systematically review six key dimensions of applying psychological theories to LLMs: (1) assessment tools; (2) LLM-specific datasets; (3) evaluation metrics (consistency and stability); (4) empirical findings; (5) personality simulation methods; and (6) LLM-based behavior simulation. Our analysis highlights both the strengths and limitations of current methods. While some LLMs exhibit reproducible personality patterns under specific prompting schemes, significant variability remains across tasks and settings. Recognizing methodological challenges such as mismatches between psychological tools and LLMs' capabilities, as well as inconsistencies in evaluation practices, this study aims to propose future directions for developing more interpretable, robust, and generalizable psychological assessment frameworks for LLMs.

Thought Manipulation: External Thought Can Be Efficient for Large Reasoning Models

Recent advancements in large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated the effectiveness of scaling test-time computation to enhance reasoning capabilities in multiple tasks. However, LRMs typically suffer from "overthinking" problems, where models generate significantly redundant reasoning steps while bringing limited performance gains. Existing work relies on fine-tuning to mitigate overthinking, which requires additional data, unconventional training setups, risky safety misalignment, and poor generalization. Through empirical analysis, we reveal an important characteristic of LRM behaviors that placing external CoTs generated by smaller models between the thinking token ($\texttt{<think>}$ and $\texttt{</think>)}$ can effectively manipulate the model to generate fewer thoughts. Building on these insights, we propose a simple yet efficient pipeline, ThoughtMani, to enable LRMs to bypass unnecessary intermediate steps and reduce computational costs significantly. We conduct extensive experiments to validate the utility and efficiency of ThoughtMani. For instance, when applied to QwQ-32B on the LiveBench/Code dataset, ThoughtMani keeps the original performance and reduces output token counts by approximately 30%, with little overhead from the CoT generator. Furthermore, we find that ThoughtMani enhances safety alignment by an average of 10%. Since model vendors typically serve models of different sizes simultaneously, ThoughtMani provides an effective way to construct more efficient and accessible LRMs for real-world applications.