VLMs May Not Globally Enhance Human Alignment over LLMs During Natural Reading

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly useful computational models of human language processing, but it remains unclear whether vision-language learning makes text representations more human-like during natural reading. Here, we address this question by comparing tightly matched LLM and vision-language model (VLM) pairs under a strictly text-only setting, allowing us to isolate the effect of multimodal training history from online visual input or cross-modal fusion. We evaluate model alignment with a human natural-reading dataset that includes whole-cortex fMRI responses and synchronized eye-tracking saccades. Our findings demonstrate that multimodal pretraining may not confer a uniform, global advantage in human alignment during natural reading, indicating that language-internal representations remain the key factor for modeling human text processing. However, the VLM advantage could emerge more selectively when sentences contain stronger visual semantic content, with converging evidence from both fMRI and eye-movement alignments. Together, our findings provide a controlled in silico framework for testing how visual learning history shapes model-human alignment of language processing, suggesting that multimodal pretraining contributes selectively rather than globally to human-like language representations during natural reading.

Conflicts Make Large Reasoning Models Vulnerable to Attacks

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable performance across diverse domains, yet their decision-making under conflicting objectives remains insufficiently understood. This work investigates how LRMs respond to harmful queries when confronted with two categories of conflicts: internal conflicts that pit alignment values against each other and dilemmas, which impose mutually contradictory choices, including sacrificial, duress, agent-centered, and social forms. Using over 1,300 prompts across five benchmarks, we evaluate three representative LRMs - Llama-3.1-Nemotron-8B, QwQ-32B, and DeepSeek R1 - and find that conflicts significantly increase attack success rates, even under single-round non-narrative queries without sophisticated auto-attack techniques. Our findings reveal through layerwise and neuron-level analyses that safety-related and functional representations shift and overlap under conflict, interfering with safety-aligned behavior. This study highlights the need for deeper alignment strategies to ensure the robustness and trustworthiness of next-generation reasoning models. Our code is available at https://github.com/DataArcTech/ConflictHarm. Warning: This paper contains inappropriate, offensive and harmful content.