Zihao Xu

Zhuowei Li, Zihao Xu, Ligong Han et al.

In-context Learning (ICL) empowers large language models (LLMs) to swiftly adapt to unseen tasks at inference-time by prefixing a few demonstration examples before queries. Despite its versatility, ICL incurs substantial computational and memory overheads compared to zero-shot learning and is sensitive to the selection and order of demonstration examples. In this work, we introduce Implicit In-context Learning (I2CL), an innovative paradigm that reduces the inference cost of ICL to that of zero-shot learning with minimal information loss. I2CL operates by first generating a condensed vector representation, namely a context vector, extracted from the demonstration examples. It then conducts an inference-time intervention through injecting a linear combination of the context vector and query activations back into the model's residual streams. Empirical evaluation on nine real-world tasks across three model architectures demonstrates that I2CL achieves few-shot level performance at zero-shot inference cost, and it exhibits robustness against variations in demonstration examples. Furthermore, I2CL facilitates a novel representation of task-ids, enhancing task similarity detection and fostering effective transfer learning. We also perform a comprehensive analysis and ablation study on I2CL, offering deeper insights into its internal mechanisms. Code is available at https://github.com/LzVv123456/I2CL.

Junchen Ding, Penghao Jiang, Zihao Xu et al.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate ethically sensitive decisions, understanding their moral reasoning processes becomes imperative. This study presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of 14 leading LLMs, both reasoning enabled and general purpose, across 27 diverse trolley problem scenarios, framed by ten moral philosophies, including utilitarianism, deontology, and altruism. Using a factorial prompting protocol, we elicited 3,780 binary decisions and natural language justifications, enabling analysis along axes of decisional assertiveness, explanation answer consistency, public moral alignment, and sensitivity to ethically irrelevant cues. Our findings reveal significant variability across ethical frames and model types: reasoning enhanced models demonstrate greater decisiveness and structured justifications, yet do not always align better with human consensus. Notably, "sweet zones" emerge in altruistic, fairness, and virtue ethics framings, where models achieve a balance of high intervention rates, low explanation conflict, and minimal divergence from aggregated human judgments. However, models diverge under frames emphasizing kinship, legality, or self interest, often producing ethically controversial outcomes. These patterns suggest that moral prompting is not only a behavioral modifier but also a diagnostic tool for uncovering latent alignment philosophies across providers. We advocate for moral reasoning to become a primary axis in LLM alignment, calling for standardized benchmarks that evaluate not just what LLMs decide, but how and why.