arXiv subjects

Jen-tse Huang

Publications and source records attributed to Jen-tse Huang.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The PIMMUR Principles: Ensuring Validity in Collective Behavior of LLM Societies

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human collective behavior, yet claims that such simulations are human-like remain largely untested. We conducted a systematic audit (pre-registered on OSF) of LLM-based social simulations across four databases (Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and arXiv). Across 576 studies reported in 350 recent papers, we applied six methodological evaluations: agent Profile, Interaction, Memory, Minimal-Control, Unawareness, and Realism (PIMMUR). Coding every study against pre-specified rules, we revealed that PIM were met more often than MUR. Frontier LLMs correctly identified the underlying social experiment in 65.2% of cases, and 50.6% of prompts imposed constraints that pre-determined the outcome. These compliance rates are upper bounds, because incomplete methodological reporting (for example, unreleased prompts) limits the available evidence. Reproducing five representative experiments (e.g., opinion dynamics), we found that reported collective phenomena often vanish or reverse once PIMMUR principles are enforced, indicating that many "emergent" behaviors are methodological artifacts rather than genuine social dynamics. Current LLM simulations may therefore capture model-specific biases rather than universal features of human social behavior, raising concerns about their use as scientific proxies for human society.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

FairCoder: Probing LLM Bias in High-Stakes Decision Making via Coding Tasks

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes decisions such as hiring and college admissions, making their social bias a critical concern. While LLMs are trained to refuse explicitly biased requests, bias can be leaked implicitly during LLM planning and reasoning process. As code becomes the primary medium for LLM internal logic-writing, we introduce FairCoder, a benchmark that frames decision-making as coding tasks to systematically probe LLM bias across employment, education, and healthcare domains, covering multiple fairness definitions. Considering that existing metrics may fail when LLMs frequently refuse the request, we propose FairScore, a metric that jointly captures refusal behavior and group-level outcome diversity. Experiments with a 1k-sample dataset on powerful LLMs reveal consistent and previously underexplored bias patterns, such as prioritizing applicants from high-income families in college admissions. Our findings highlight the risks of deploying LLMs as decision-making agents and provide a comprehensive evaluation framework for future research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Probing Multimodal Large Language Models on Cognitive Biases in Chinese Short-Video Misinformation

Short-video platforms have become major channels for misinformation, where deceptive claims frequently leverage visual experiments and social cues. While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities, their robustness against misinformation entangled with cognitive biases remains under-explored. In this paper, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework using a high-quality, manually annotated dataset of 200 short videos spanning four health domains. This dataset provides fine-grained annotations for three deceptive patterns-experimental errors, logical fallacies, and fabricated claims-each verified by evidence such as national standards and academic literature. We evaluate eight frontier MLLMs across five modality settings. Experimental results demonstrate that Gemini-2.5-Pro achieves the highest performance in the multimodal setting with a belief score of 71.5/100, while o3 performs the worst at 35.2. Furthermore, we investigate social cues that induce false beliefs in videos and find that models are susceptible to biases like authoritative channel IDs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Agentopia: Long-Term Life Simulation and Learning in Agent Societies

Humans learn from social life. Simulating this process with LLM-powered agents represents a promising research direction, raising a natural question: whether LLMs can learn from such simulated social experience to better understand and replicate human behavior. However, prior agent society simulations typically operate at the scale of days, limiting the depth of social interactions and long-term growth. In this paper, we study long-term life simulation and LLM learning in agent societies, with two goals: (1) investigating social behaviors that emerge from life-long simulation, and (2) developing anthropomorphic capabilities in LLMs, particularly intelligence in social life, through years of simulated social experience. Specifically, we present Agentopia, a comprehensive framework for long-term life simulation in multi-agent societies, where 100 agents autonomously pursue personal growth, develop social relationships, and fulfill their needs and goals over 10 simulated years. We define life reward to mirror human well-being, and leverage this reward to train LLMs via rejection sampling. Extensive experiments show that agents exhibit rich emergent social behaviors. Furthermore, life reward training effectively enhances the underlying LLM, which leads to improved agent well-being in simulation, and generalizes to downstream role-playing benchmarks with +15.6% improvement.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Artificial Intolerance: Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation Skews Large Language Model Decision-Making

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support and medical documentation. However, the robustness of these models against subtle linguistic variations, specifically stigmatizing language (SL) commonly found in human-authored clinical notes, remains critically under-explored. In this work, we investigate whether frontier LLMs inherit and propagate this human bias when processing clinical text. We systematically evaluate nine frontier LLMs across four stigmatized medical conditions, utilizing clinical vignettes injected with varying intensities and phenotypes of SL (doubt, blame, and maligning). Our results demonstrate that all evaluated models exhibit substantial bias, with clinical decision-making significantly skewed towards less aggressive patient management. Notably, we observe a high sensitivity to linguistic framing, where a single SL sentence is sufficient to alter model outputs, revealing a clear dose-response relationship. Furthermore, we evaluate standard prompt-based mitigation strategies, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and model self-debiasing. These approaches show limited efficacy; models struggle to explicitly identify SL while remaining implicitly influenced by it. Our findings expose a critical vulnerability in current LLMs regarding fairness and robustness in clinical NLP, underscoring the need for rigorous algorithmic guardrails to prevent the automation of health disparities.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

SWE-Chain: Benchmarking Coding Agents on Chained Release-Level Package Upgrades

Coding agents powered by large language models are increasingly expected to perform realistic software maintenance tasks beyond isolated issue resolution. Existing benchmarks have shifted toward realistic software evolution, but they rarely capture continuous maintenance at the granularity of package releases, where changes are bundled, shipped, and inherited by subsequent versions. We present SWE-Chain, a benchmark for evaluating agents on chained release-level package upgrades, where each transition builds on the agent's prior codebase. To produce upgrade specifications, we design a divide-and-conquer synthesis pipeline that aligns release notes with code diffs for each version transition, ensuring the requirements are grounded in actual code changes, informative to agents, and feasible to implement. SWE-Chain contains 12 upgrade chains across 9 real Python packages, with 155 version transitions and 1,660 grounded upgrade requirements. Across nine frontier agent-model configurations, agents achieve an average of 44.8% resolving, 65.4% precision, and 50.2% F1 under the Build+Fix regime, with Claude-Opus-4.7 (Claude Code) leading at 60.8% resolving, 80.6% precision, and 68.5% F1. These results show that SWE-Chain is both feasible and discriminative, and reveal that current agents still struggle to make correct upgrades across chained package releases without breaking existing functionality.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

How to Interpret Agent Behavior

Autonomous agents such as Claude Code and Codex now operate for hours or even days. Understanding their runtime behavior has become critical for downstream tasks such as diagnosing inefficiencies, fixing bugs, and ensuring better oversight. A primary way to gain this understanding is analyzing the reasoning trajectories and execution traces these agents generate. Yet such data remains in unstructured natural-language form, making it difficult for humans to interpret at scale. We introduce ACT*ONOMY (a combination of Action and Taxonomy), a taxonomy for describing and analyzing agent behavior at runtime. ACT*ONOMY has two components: (1) the taxonomy itself, developed through Grounded Theory and structured as a three-level hierarchy of 10 actions, 46 subactions, and 120 leaf categories; and (2) an open repository that hosts the living taxonomy, provides an automated analysis pipeline that applies it to agent trajectories analysis, and defines an extension protocol for customization and growth. Our experiments show that ACTONOMY can compare behavioral profiles across agents and characterize a single agent's behavior across diverse trajectories, surfacing patterns indicative of failure modes. By providing a shared vocabulary, ACT*ONOMY helps researchers, agent designers, and end users interpret agent behavior more consistently, enabling better oversight and control.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Identifying the Achilles' Heel: An Iterative Method for Dynamically Uncovering Factual Errors in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are foundational in various applications due to their extensive knowledge from pre-training and fine-tuning. Despite this, they are prone to generating factual and commonsense errors, raising concerns in critical areas like healthcare, journalism, and education to mislead users. Current methods for evaluating LLMs' veracity are limited by the need for extensive human labor, test data contamination, or limited scope, hindering efficient and effective exposure of errors. To address these challenges, we propose HalluHunter, a novel, fully automated framework for systematically uncovering factual inaccuracies in LLMs. HalluHunter employs a knowledge-graph-based approach, extracting fact triplets to generate diverse question types for single- and multi-hop reasoning using rule-based Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques. Its iterative process starts with random triplet selection for question generation, followed by adaptive selection in subsequent iterations, targeting triplets where LLMs frequently err based on their performance analysis. Our extensive tests on nine prominent LLMs reveal that HalluHunter can trigger factual errors in up to 55% of tested questions. Moreover, we demonstrate that HalluHunter's test cases, particularly in adaptive selection, could further expose the weaknesses in benchmarking the factuality in LLMs meanwhile maintaining the coverage of questions. All code, data, and results are available at this link: https://github.com/Mysterchan/HalluHunter.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Learning to Ask: When LLM Agents Meet Unclear Instruction

Equipped with the capability to call functions, modern large language models (LLMs) can leverage external tools for addressing a range of tasks unattainable through language skills alone. However, the effective execution of these tools relies heavily not just on the advanced capabilities of LLMs but also on precise user instructions, which often cannot be ensured in the real world. To evaluate the performance of LLMs tool-use under imperfect instructions, we meticulously examine the real-world instructions queried from users, analyze the error patterns, and build a challenging tool-use benchmark called Noisy ToolBench (NoisyToolBench). We find that due to the next-token prediction training objective, LLMs tend to arbitrarily generate the missed argument, which may lead to hallucinations and risks. To address this issue, we propose a novel framework, Ask-when-Needed (AwN), which prompts LLMs to ask questions to users whenever they encounter obstacles due to unclear instructions. Moreover, to reduce the manual labor involved in user-LLM interaction and assess LLMs performance in tool utilization from both accuracy and efficiency perspectives, we design an automated evaluation tool named ToolEvaluator. Our experiments demonstrate that the AwN significantly outperforms existing frameworks for tool learning in the NoisyToolBench. We will release all related code and datasets to support future research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

A Survey on the Safety and Security Threats of Computer-Using Agents: JARVIS or Ultron?

Recently, AI-driven interactions with computing devices have advanced from basic prototype tools to sophisticated, LLM-based systems that emulate human-like operations in graphical user interfaces. We are now witnessing the emergence of \emph{Computer-Using Agents} (CUAs), capable of autonomously performing tasks such as navigating desktop applications, web pages, and mobile apps. However, as these agents grow in capability, they also introduce novel safety and security risks. Vulnerabilities in LLM-driven reasoning, with the added complexity of integrating multiple software components and multimodal inputs, further complicate the security landscape. In this paper, we present a systematization of knowledge on the safety and security threats of CUAs. We conduct a comprehensive literature review and distill our findings along four research objectives: \textit{\textbf{(i)}} define the CUA that suits safety analysis; \textit{\textbf{(ii)} } categorize current safety threats among CUAs; \textit{\textbf{(iii)}} propose a comprehensive taxonomy of existing defensive strategies; \textit{\textbf{(iv)}} summarize prevailing benchmarks, datasets, and evaluation metrics used to assess the safety and performance of CUAs. Building on these insights, our work provides future researchers with a structured foundation for exploring unexplored vulnerabilities and offers practitioners actionable guidance in designing and deploying secure Computer-Using Agents.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Chameleon's Limit: Investigating Persona Collapse and Homogenization in Large Language Models

Applications based on large language models (LLMs), such as multi-agent simulations, require population diversity among agents. We identify a pervasive failure mode we term \emph{Persona Collapse}: agents each assigned a distinct profile nonetheless converge into a narrow behavioral mode, producing a homogeneous simulated population. To quantify persona collapse, we propose a framework that measures how much of the persona space a population occupies (Coverage), how evenly agents spread across it (Uniformity), and how rich the resulting behavioral patterns are (Complexity). Evaluating ten LLMs on personality simulation (BFI-44), moral reasoning, and self-introduction, we observe persona collapse along two axes: (1) Dimensions: a model can appear diverse on one axis yet structurally degenerate on another, and (2) Domains: the same model may collapse the most in personality yet be the most diverse in moral reasoning. Furthermore, item-level diagnostics reveal that behavioral variation tracks coarse demographic stereotypes rather than the fine-grained individual differences specified in each persona. Counter-intuitively, \textbf{the models achieving the highest per-persona fidelity consistently produce the most stereotyped populations}. We release our toolkit and data to support population-level evaluation of LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Curing Miracle Steps in LLM Mathematical Reasoning with Rubric Rewards

In this paper, we observe that current models are susceptible to reward hacking, leading to a substantial overestimation of a model's reasoning ability. This is evidenced by a high incidence of false positives-solutions that reach the correct answer through an unsound process. Through a systematic analysis with human verification, we establish a taxonomy of these failure modes, identifying patterns like Miracle Steps-abrupt jumps to a correct output without a valid preceding derivation. Probing experiments suggest that these Miracle Steps are linked to answer-recall shortcuts, including memorization from pretraining, where the model accesses the correct answer independently of its reasoning chain. To mitigate this systemic issue, we introduce the Rubric Reward Model (RRM), a process-oriented reward function that evaluates the entire reasoning trajectory against problem-specific rubrics. The RRM explicitly penalizes logical flaws and encourages rigorous deduction. When integrated into an RL pipeline, RRM-based training consistently outperforms outcome-only supervision across four math benchmarks. Notably, it boosts Verified Pass@1024 on AIME2024 from 26.7% to 62.6% and reduces the incidence of Miracle Steps by 71%. Our work demonstrates that rewarding the solution process is crucial for building accurate and reliable models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

HumanLLM: Benchmarking and Improving LLM Anthropomorphism via Human Cognitive Patterns

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in reasoning and generation, serving as the foundation for advanced persona simulation and Role-Playing Language Agents (RPLAs). However, achieving authentic alignment with human cognitive and behavioral patterns remains a critical challenge for these agents. We present HumanLLM, a framework treating psychological patterns as interacting causal forces. We construct 244 patterns from $\sim$12,000 academic papers and synthesize 11,359 scenarios where 2-5 patterns reinforce, conflict, or modulate each other, with multi-turn conversations expressing inner thoughts, actions, and dialogue. Our dual-level checklists evaluate both individual pattern fidelity and emergent multi-pattern dynamics, achieving strong human alignment ($r=0.90$) while revealing that holistic metrics conflate simulation accuracy with social desirability. HumanLLM-8B outperforms Qwen3-32B on multi-pattern dynamics despite 4$\times$ fewer parameters, demonstrating that authentic anthropomorphism requires cognitive modeling -- simulating not just what humans do, but the psychological processes generating those behaviors. Our dataset, code, and model are available at:https://github.com/YJGoodbye2024/HumanLLM

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

What do Language Models Learn and When? The Implicit Curriculum Hypothesis

Large language models (LLMs) can perform remarkably complex tasks, yet the fine-grained details of how these capabilities emerge during pretraining remain poorly understood. Scaling laws on validation loss tell us how much a model improves with additional compute, but not what skills it acquires in which order. To remedy this, we propose the Implicit Curriculum Hypothesis: pretraining follows a compositional and predictable curriculum across models and data mixtures. We test this by designing a suite of simple, composable tasks spanning retrieval, morphological transformations, coreference, logical reasoning, and mathematics. Using these tasks, we track emergence points across four model families spanning sizes from 410M-13B parameters. We find that emergence orderings of when models reach fixed accuracy thresholds are strikingly consistent ($ρ= .81$ across 45 model pairs), and that composite tasks most often emerge after their component tasks. Furthermore, we find that this structure is encoded in model representations: tasks with similar function vector representations also tend to follow similar trajectories in training. By using the space of representations derived from our task set, we can effectively predict the training trajectories of simple held-out compositional tasks throughout the course of pretraining ($R^2 = .68$-$.84$ across models) without previously evaluating them. Together, these results suggest that pretraining is more structured than loss curves reveal: skills emerge in a compositional order that is consistent across models and readable from their internals.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Diversity-Enhanced Reasoning for Subjective Questions

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) with long chain-of-thought capabilities, optimized via reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), excel at objective reasoning tasks like mathematical problem solving and code generation. However, RLVR is known for degrading generation diversity, which causes LRMs to fall short on subjective reasoning that has multiple answers depending on different role perspectives. While recent studies recognize the importance of diversity-enhanced training in objective reasoning, limited attention has been given to subjective tasks. In this paper, we find that subjective reasoning can be improved by introducing perspective diversity and token-level diversity, with the former one providing a coherent scaffolding anchored to a real-world stakeholder group and the latter one broadening the answer search space. We propose MultiRole-R1, a diversity-enhanced training framework featuring an unsupervised data construction pipeline that synthesizes reasoning chains incorporating various role perspectives. It also employs reinforcement learning via Group Relative Policy Optimization with reward shaping, taking diversity as a reward signal in addition to verifiable reward. Training on subjective tasks solely, MultiRole-R1 increases the in-domain and out-of-domain accuracy by 14.1% and 7.64%, and even enhances the performance on advanced math reasoning such as AIME 2024. We further show that diversity is a more consistent indicator of accuracy than reasoning length.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ComUICoder: Component-based Reusable UI Code Generation for Complex Websites via Semantic Segmentation and Element-wise Feedback

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on the UI-to-code task, which aims to generate UI code from design mock-ups. However, when applied to long and complex websites, they often struggle with fragmented segmentation, redundant code generation for repetitive components, and frequent UI inconsistencies. To systematically investigate and address these challenges, we introduce ComUIBench, a new multi-page complex webpage benchmark with component annotations, designed to evaluate MLLMs' ability to generate reusable UI code in realistic website scenarios. Building upon this benchmark, we propose ComUICoder, a component-based UI code generation framework that emphasizes semantic-aware segmentation, code reuse, and fine-grained refinement. Specifically, ComUICoder incorporates (1) Hybrid Semantic-aware Block Segmentation for accurate UI semantic coherent block detection, (2) Visual-aware Graph-based Block Merge to consolidate structurally similar components within and across webpages for reusable implementation, and (3) Priority-based Element-wise Feedback to refine generated code and reduce element-level inconsistencies. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ComUICoder significantly improves overall generation quality and code reusability on complex multipage websites. Our datasets and code are publicly available at https://github.com/WebPAI/ComUICoder.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

On the Failure of Latent State Persistence in Large Language Models

While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in reasoning, whether they can sustain persistent latent states remains under-explored. The capacity to maintain and manipulate unexpressed, internal representations-analogous to human working memory-is a cornerstone of complex reasoning. In this paper, we formalize and quantify the "Latent State Persistence" (LSP) gap through three novel experiments. First, we utilize a Number Guessing Game, demonstrating that across independent queries, LLMs fail to allocate probability mass to a singular hidden choice, violating a fundamental probabilistic principle. Second, we employ a Yes-No Game to show that as the number of questions increases, LLMs suffer from "concept drift," leading to inevitable self-contradictions due to the lack of LSP. Finally, inspired by Mathematical Mentalism, we task models with tracking transformations on hidden variables, revealing a failure in variable binding and state evolution when the initial state is not explicitly present in the context. Collectively, these findings suggest that LLMs function as reactive post-hoc solvers rather than proactive planners with LSP. Our work provides a framework for evaluating the fidelity of internal representations and highlights a fundamental architectural divergence between autoregressive transformers and human-like cognition.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

FAIRGAMER: Evaluating Social Biases in LLM-Based Video Game NPCs

Large Language Models (LLMs) have increasingly enhanced or replaced traditional Non-Player Characters (NPCs) in video games. However, these LLM-based NPCs inherit underlying social biases (e.g., race or class), posing fairness risks during in-game interactions. To address the limited exploration of this issue, we introduce FairGamer, the first benchmark to evaluate social biases across three interaction patterns: transaction, cooperation, and competition. FairGamer assesses four bias types, including class, race, age, and nationality, across 12 distinct evaluation tasks using a novel metric, FairMCV. Our evaluation of seven frontier LLMs reveals that: (1) models exhibit biased decision-making, with Grok-4-Fast demonstrating the highest bias (average FairMCV = 76.9%); and (2) larger LLMs display more severe social biases, suggesting that increased model capacity inadvertently amplifies these biases. We release FairGamer at https://github.com/Anonymous999-xxx/FairGamer to facilitate future research on NPC fairness.

cs.AI↗