Language models now provide an interface to express and often solve general problems in natural language, yet their ultimate computational capabilities remain a major topic of scientific debate. Unlike a formal computer, a language model is trained to autoregressively predict successive elements in human-generated text. We prove that chaining a language model's autoregressive output is sufficient to perform universal computation. That is, a language model can simulate the execution of any algorithm on any input. The challenge of eliciting desired computational behaviour can thus be reframed in terms of programmability: the ease of finding a suitable prompt. Strikingly, we demonstrate that even randomly initialized language models are capable of universal computation before training. This implies that training does not give rise to computational expressiveness -- rather, it improves programmability, enabling a natural language interface for accessing these intrinsic capabilities.
Intelligent interfaces increasingly use large language models to summarize user-generated content, yet these summaries emphasize what is mentioned while overlooking what is missing. This presence bias can mislead users who rely on summaries to make decisions. We present Domain Informed Summarization through Contrast (DiSCo), an expectation-based computational approach that makes absences visible by comparing each entity's content with domain topical expectations captured in reference distributions of aspects typically discussed in comparable accommodations. This comparison identifies aspects that are either unusually emphasized or missing relative to domain norms and integrates them into the generated text. In a user study across three accommodation domains, namely ski, beach, and city center, DiSCo summaries were rated as more detailed and useful for decision making than baseline large language model summaries, although slightly harder to read. The findings show that modeling expectations reduces presence bias and improves both transparency and decision support in intelligent summarization interfaces.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in security-sensitive applications, where they must follow system- or developer-specified instructions that define the intended task behavior, while completing benign user requests. When adversarial instructions appear in user queries or externally retrieved content, models may override intended logic. Recent defenses rely on supervised fine-tuning with benign and malicious labels. Although these methods achieve high attack rejection rates, we find that they rely on narrow correlations in defense data rather than harmful intent, leading to systematic rejection of safe inputs. We analyze three recurring shortcut behaviors induced by defense fine-tuning. \emph{Position bias} arises when benign content placed later in a prompt is rejected at much higher rates; across reasoning benchmarks, suffix-task rejection rises from below \textbf{10\%} to as high as \textbf{90\%}. \emph{Token trigger bias} occurs when strings common in attack data raise rejection probability even in benign contexts; inserting a single trigger token increases false refusals by up to \textbf{50\%}. \emph{Topic generalization bias} reflects poor generalization beyond the defense data distribution, with defended models suffering test-time accuracy drops of up to \textbf{40\%}. These findings suggest that current prompt-injection defenses frequently respond to attack-like surface patterns rather than the underlying intent. We introduce controlled diagnostic datasets and a systematic evaluation across two base models and multiple defense pipelines, highlighting limitations of supervised fine-tuning for reliable LLM security.
LLM-based client simulation has emerged as a promising tool for training novice counselors and evaluating automated counseling systems. However, existing client simulation approaches face three key challenges: (1) limited diversity and realism in client profiles, (2) the lack of a principled framework for modeling realistic client behaviors, and (3) a scarcity in Chinese-language settings. To address these limitations, we propose PsyCLIENT, a novel simulation framework grounded in conversational trajectory modeling. By conditioning LLM generation on predefined real-world trajectories that incorporate explicit behavior labels and content constraints, our approach ensures diverse and realistic interactions. We further introduce PsyCLIENT-CP, the first open-source Chinese client profile dataset, covering 60 distinct counseling topics. Comprehensive evaluations involving licensed professional counselors demonstrate that PsyCLIENT significantly outperforms baselines in terms of authenticity and training effectiveness. Notably, the simulated clients are nearly indistinguishable from human clients, achieving an about 95\% expert confusion rate in discrimination tasks. These findings indicate that conversational trajectory modeling effectively bridges the gap between theoretical client profiles and dynamic, realistic simulations, offering a robust solution for mental health education and research. Code and data will be released to facilitate future research in mental health counseling.
Argumentation generation has attracted substantial research interest due to its central role in human reasoning and decision-making. However, most existing argumentative corpora focus on non-interactive, single-turn settings, either generating arguments from a given topic or refuting an existing argument. In practice, however, argumentation is often realized as multi-turn dialogue, where speakers defend their stances and employ diverse argumentative strategies to strengthen persuasiveness. To support deeper modeling of argumentation dialogue, we present the first large-scale \textbf{S}trategic \textbf{A}rgumentative \textbf{D}ialogue dataset, SAD, consisting of 392,822 examples. Grounded in argumentation theories, we annotate each utterance with five strategy types, allowing multiple strategies per utterance. Unlike prior datasets, SAD requires models to generate contextually appropriate arguments conditioned on the dialogue history, a specified stance on the topic, and targeted argumentation strategies. We further benchmark a range of pretrained generative models on SAD and present in-depth analysis of strategy usage patterns in argumentation.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on retrieving information from external corpora. This creates a new attack surface: indirect prompt injection (IPI), where hidden instructions are planted in the corpora and hijack model behavior once retrieved. Previous studies have highlighted this risk but often avoid the hardest step: ensuring that malicious content is actually retrieved. In practice, unoptimized IPI is rarely retrieved under natural queries, which leaves its real-world impact unclear. We address this challenge by decomposing the malicious content into a trigger fragment that guarantees retrieval and an attack fragment that encodes arbitrary attack objectives. Based on this idea, we design an efficient and effective black-box attack algorithm that constructs a compact trigger fragment to guarantee retrieval for any attack fragment. Our attack requires only API access to embedding models, is cost-efficient (as little as $0.21 per target user query on OpenAI's embedding models), and achieves near-100% retrieval across 11 benchmarks and 8 embedding models (including both open-source models and proprietary services). Based on this attack, we present the first end-to-end IPI exploits under natural queries and realistic external corpora, spanning both RAG and agentic systems with diverse attack objectives. These results establish IPI as a practical and severe threat: when a user issued a natural query to summarize emails on frequently asked topics, a single poisoned email was sufficient to coerce GPT-4o into exfiltrating SSH keys with over 80% success in a multi-agent workflow. We further evaluate several defenses and find that they are insufficient to prevent the retrieval of malicious text, highlighting retrieval as a critical open vulnerability.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes contexts where their outputs influence real-world decisions. However, evaluating bias in LLM outputs remains methodologically challenging due to sensitivity to prompt wording, limited multilingual coverage, and the lack of standardized metrics that enable reliable comparison across models. This paper introduces BiasLab, an open-source, model-agnostic evaluation framework for quantifying output-level (extrinsic) bias through a multilingual, robustness-oriented experimental design. BiasLab constructs mirrored probe pairs under a strict dual-framing scheme: an affirmative assertion favoring Target A and a reverse assertion obtained by deterministic target substitution favoring Target B, while preserving identical linguistic structure. To reduce dependence on prompt templates, BiasLab performs repeated evaluation under randomized instructional wrappers and enforces a fixed-choice Likert response format to maximize comparability across models and languages. Responses are normalized into agreement labels using an LLM-based judge, aligned for polarity consistency across framings, and aggregated into quantitative bias indicators with descriptive statistics including effect sizes and neutrality rates. The framework supports evaluation across diverse bias axes, including demographic, cultural, political, and geopolitical topics, and produces reproducible artifacts such as structured reports and comparative visualizations. BiasLab contributes a standardized methodology for cross-lingual and framing-sensitive bias measurement that complements intrinsic and dataset-based audits, enabling researchers and institutions to benchmark robustness and make better-informed deployment decisions.
Although long-term memory systems have made substantial progress in recent years, they still exhibit clear limitations in adaptability, scalability, and self-evolution under continuous interaction settings. Inspired by cognitive theories, we propose HiMem, a hierarchical long-term memory framework for long-horizon dialogues, designed to support memory construction, retrieval, and dynamic updating during sustained interactions. HiMem constructs cognitively consistent Episode Memory via a Topic-Aware Event--Surprise Dual-Channel Segmentation strategy, and builds Note Memory that captures stable knowledge through a multi-stage information extraction pipeline. These two memory types are semantically linked to form a hierarchical structure that bridges concrete interaction events and abstract knowledge, enabling efficient retrieval without sacrificing information fidelity. HiMem supports both hybrid and best-effort retrieval strategies to balance accuracy and efficiency, and incorporates conflict-aware Memory Reconsolidation to revise and supplement stored knowledge based on retrieval feedback. This design enables continual memory self-evolution over long-term use. Experimental results on long-horizon dialogue benchmarks demonstrate that HiMem consistently outperforms representative baselines in accuracy, consistency, and long-term reasoning, while maintaining favorable efficiency. Overall, HiMem provides a principled and scalable design paradigm for building adaptive and self-evolving LLM-based conversational agents. The code is available at https://github.com/jojopdq/HiMem.
The Natural Conversation Benchmark (NC-Bench) introduce a new approach to evaluating the general conversational competence of large language models (LLMs). Unlike prior benchmarks that focus on the content of model behavior, NC-Bench focuses on the form and structure of natural conversation. Grounded in the IBM Natural Conversation Framework (NCF), NC-Bench comprises three distinct sets. The Basic Conversation Competence set evaluates fundamental sequence management practices, such as answering inquiries, repairing responses, and closing conversational pairs. The RAG set applies the same sequence management patterns as the first set but incorporates retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). The Complex Request set extends the evaluation to complex requests involving more intricate sequence management patterns. Each benchmark tests a model's ability to produce contextually appropriate conversational actions in response to characteristic interaction patterns. Initial evaluations across 6 open-source models and 14 interaction patterns show that models perform well on basic answering tasks, struggle more with repair tasks (especially repeat), have mixed performance on closing sequences, and find complex multi-turn requests most challenging, with Qwen models excelling on the Basic set and Granite models on the RAG set and the Complex Request set. By operationalizing fundamental principles of human conversation, NC-Bench provides a lightweight, extensible, and theory-grounded framework for assessing and improving the conversational abilities of LLMs beyond topical or task-specific benchmarks.
High-fidelity agent initialization is crucial for credible Agent-Based Modeling across diverse domains. A robust framework should be Topic-Adaptive, capturing macro-level joint distributions while ensuring micro-level individual rationality. Existing approaches fall into two categories: static data-based retrieval methods that fail to adapt to unseen topics absent from the data, and LLM-based generation methods that lack macro-level distribution awareness, resulting in inconsistencies between micro-level persona attributes and reality. To address these problems, we propose HAG, a Hierarchical Agent Generation framework that formalizes population generation as a two-stage decision process. Firstly, utilizing a World Knowledge Model to infer hierarchical conditional probabilities to construct the Topic-Adaptive Tree, achieving macro-level distribution alignment. Then, grounded real-world data, instantiation and agentic augmentation are carried out to ensure micro-level consistency. Given the lack of specialized evaluation, we establish a multi-domain benchmark and a comprehensive PACE evaluation framework. Extensive experiments show that HAG significantly outperforms representative baselines, reducing population alignment errors by an average of 37.7% and enhancing sociological consistency by 18.8%.