Xiangyu Zhao

Zhaofeng Zhong, Wei Yuan, Tong Chen et al.

Recent large reasoning models (LRMs) have made substantial progress in complex reasoning tasks, yet they often generate lengthy reasoning paths for every query, incurring unnecessary computation and latency. Existing speed-up approaches typically rely on retraining the model or designing sophisticated prompting, which are either prohibitively expensive or highly sensitive to the input and prompt formulation. In this work, we study model merging as a lightweight alternative for efficient reasoning: by combining a long chain-of-thought (Long-CoT) reasoning model with a Short-CoT instruction model, we obtain an adaptive reasoner without training from scratch or requiring large-scale additional data. Building on this idea, we propose Reasoning Pattern Alignment Merging (RPAM), a layer-wise model merging framework based on feature alignment to facilitate query-adaptive reasoning. RPAM first constructs a small pattern-labeled calibration set that assigns each query an appropriate reasoning pattern. It then optimizes layer-wise merging coefficients by aligning the merged model's intermediate representations with those of the selected model, while a contrastive objective explicitly pushes them away from the non-selected model. Experiments on seven widely used reasoning benchmarks show that RPAM substantially reduces inference cost while maintaining strong performance. Upon article acceptance, we will provide open-source code to reproduce experiments for RPAM.

Yaling Shen, Stephanie Fong, Yiwen Jiang et al.

The increasing integration of large language models (LLMs) into mental health applications necessitates robust frameworks for evaluating professional safety alignment. Current evaluative approaches primarily rely on refusal-based safety signals, which offer limited insight into the nuanced behaviors required in clinical practice. In mental health, clinically inadequate refusals can be perceived as unempathetic and discourage help-seeking. To address this gap, we move beyond refusal-centric metrics and introduce \texttt{PsychEthicsBench}, the first principle-grounded benchmark based on Australian psychology and psychiatry guidelines, designed to evaluate LLMs' ethical knowledge and behavioral responses through multiple-choice and open-ended tasks with fine-grained ethicality annotations. Empirical results across 14 models reveal that refusal rates are poor indicators of ethical behavior, revealing a significant divergence between safety triggers and clinical appropriateness. Notably, we find that domain-specific fine-tuning can degrade ethical robustness, as several specialized models underperform their base backbones in ethical alignment. PsychEthicsBench provides a foundation for systematic, jurisdiction-aware evaluation of LLMs in mental health, encouraging more responsible development in this domain.