Gelei Deng

Chenhang Cui, An Zhang, Yuxin Chen et al.

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have rapidly advanced across various domains, yet they still lag behind strong text-only large language models (LLMs) on tasks that require multi-step inference and compositional decision-making. Motivated by their shared transformer architectures, we investigate whether the two model families rely on common internal computation for such inference. At the neuron level, we uncover a surprisingly large overlap: more than half of the top-activated units during multi-step inference are shared between representative LLMs and LVLMs, revealing a modality-invariant inference subspace. Through causal probing via activation amplification, we further show that these shared neurons encode consistent and interpretable concept-level effects, demonstrating their functional contribution to inference. Building on this insight, we propose Shared Neuron Low-Rank Fusion (SNRF), a parameter-efficient framework that transfers mature inference circuitry from LLMs to LVLMs. SNRF profiles cross-model activations to identify shared neurons, computes a low-rank approximation of inter-model weight differences, and injects these updates selectively within the shared-neuron subspace. This mechanism strengthens multimodal inference performance with minimal parameter changes and requires no large-scale multimodal fine-tuning. Across diverse mathematics and perception benchmarks, SNRF consistently enhances LVLM inference performance while preserving perceptual capabilities. Our results demonstrate that shared neurons form an interpretable bridge between LLMs and LVLMs, enabling low-cost transfer of inference ability into multimodal models. Our code is available at [https://github.com/chenhangcuisg-code/Do-LLMs-VLMs-Share-Neurons](https://github.com/chenhangcuisg-code/Do-LLMs-VLMs-Share-Neurons).

Jingnan Zheng, Yanzhen Luo, Jingjun Xu et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents that operate in real-world environments, introducing safety risks beyond linguistic harm. Existing agent safety evaluations rely on risk-oriented tasks tailored to specific agent settings, resulting in limited coverage of safety risk space and failing to assess agent safety behavior during long-horizon, interactive task execution in complex real-world deployments. Moreover, their specialization to particular agent settings limits adaptability across diverse agent configurations. To address these limitations, we propose Risky-Bench, a framework that enables systematic agent safety evaluation grounded in real-world deployment. Risky-Bench organizes evaluation around domain-agnostic safety principles to derive context-aware safety rubrics that delineate safety space, and systematically evaluates safety risks across this space through realistic task execution under varying threat assumptions. When applied to life-assist agent settings, Risky-Bench uncovers substantial safety risks in state-of-the-art agents under realistic execution conditions. Moreover, as a well-structured evaluation pipeline, Risky-Bench is not confined to life-assist scenarios and can be adapted to other deployment settings to construct environment-specific safety evaluations, providing an extensible methodology for agent safety assessment.

Haoran Ou, Kangjie Chen, Gelei Deng et al.

Fact-checking systems with search-enabled large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential for verifying claims by dynamically retrieving external evidence. However, the robustness of such systems against adversarial attack remains insufficiently understood. In this work, we study adversarial claim attacks against search-enabled LLM-based fact-checking systems under a realistic input-only threat model. We propose DECEIVE-AFC, an agent-based adversarial attack framework that integrates novel claim-level attack strategies and adversarial claim validity evaluation principles. DECEIVE-AFC systematically explores adversarial attack trajectories that disrupt search behavior, evidence retrieval, and LLM-based reasoning without relying on access to evidence sources or model internals. Extensive evaluations on benchmark datasets and real-world systems demonstrate that our attacks substantially degrade verification performance, reducing accuracy from 78.7% to 53.7%, and significantly outperform existing claim-based attack baselines with strong cross-system transferability.