Sai Praneeth Karimireddy

Ala N. Tak, Amin Banayeeanzade, Anahita Bolourani et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly positioned as decision engines for hiring, healthcare, and economic judgment, yet real-world human judgment reflects a balance between rational deliberation and emotion-driven bias. If LLMs are to participate in high-stakes decisions or serve as models of human behavior, it is critical to assess whether they exhibit analogous patterns of (ir)rationalities and biases. To this end, we evaluate multiple LLM families on (i) benchmarks testing core axioms of rational choice and (ii) classic decision domains from behavioral economics and social norms where emotions are known to shape judgment and choice. Across settings, we show that deliberate "thinking" reliably improves rationality and pushes models toward expected-value maximization. To probe human-like affective distortions and their interaction with reasoning, we use two emotion-steering methods: in-context priming (ICP) and representation-level steering (RLS). ICP induces strong directional shifts that are often extreme and difficult to calibrate, whereas RLS produces more psychologically plausible patterns but with lower reliability. Our results suggest that the same mechanisms that improve rationality also amplify sensitivity to affective interventions, and that different steering methods trade off controllability against human-aligned behavior. Overall, this points to a tension between reasoning and affective steering, with implications for both human simulation and the safe deployment of LLM-based decision systems.

Yavuz Bakman, Duygu Nur Yaldiz, Salman Avestimehr et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rarely static and are frequently updated in practice. A growing body of alignment research has shown that models initially deemed "aligned" can exhibit misaligned behavior after fine-tuning, such as forgetting jailbreak safety features or re-surfacing knowledge that was intended to be forgotten. These works typically assume that the initial model is aligned based on static black-box evaluation, i.e., the absence of undesired responses to a fixed set of queries. In contrast, we formalize model alignment in both the static and post-update settings and uncover a fundamental limitation of black-box evaluation. We theoretically show that, due to overparameterization, static alignment provides no guarantee of post-update alignment for any update dataset. Moreover, we prove that static black-box probing cannot distinguish a model that is genuinely post-update robust from one that conceals an arbitrary amount of adversarial behavior which can be activated by even a single benign gradient update. We further validate these findings empirically in LLMs across three core alignment domains: privacy, jailbreak safety, and behavioral honesty. We demonstrate the existence of LLMs that pass all standard black-box alignment tests, yet become severely misaligned after a single benign update. Finally, we show that the capacity to hide such latent adversarial behavior increases with model scale, confirming our theoretical prediction that post-update misalignment grows with the number of parameters. Together, our results highlight the inadequacy of static evaluation protocols and emphasize the urgent need for post-update-robust alignment evaluation.