Haeun Jang

Haeun Jang, Hwan Chang, Hwanhee Lee

The deployment of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) for real-world document question answering is often constrained by dynamic, user-defined policies that dictate information disclosure based on context. While ensuring adherence to these explicit constraints is critical, existing safety research primarily focuses on implicit social norms or text-only settings, overlooking the complexities of multimodal documents. In this paper, we introduce Doc-PP (Document Policy Preservation Benchmark), a novel benchmark constructed from real-world reports requiring reasoning across heterogeneous visual and textual elements under strict non-disclosure policies. Our evaluation highlights a systemic Reasoning-Induced Safety Gap: models frequently leak sensitive information when answers must be inferred through complex synthesis or aggregated across modalities, effectively circumventing existing safety constraints. Furthermore, we identify that providing extracted text improves perception but inadvertently facilitates leakage. To address these vulnerabilities, we propose DVA (Decompose-Verify-Aggregation), a structural inference framework that decouples reasoning from policy verification. Experimental results demonstrate that DVA significantly outperforms standard prompting defenses, offering a robust baseline for policy-compliant document understanding

Jeonghyun Park, Ingeol Baek, Seunghyun Yoon et al.

Real-world Multi-hop Question Answering (QA) often involves ambiguity that is inseparable from the reasoning process itself. This ambiguity creates a distinct challenge, where multiple reasoning paths emerge from a single question, each requiring independent resolution. Since each sub-question is ambiguous, the model must resolve ambiguity at every step. Thus, answering a single question requires handling multiple layers of ambiguity throughout the reasoning chain. We find that current Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle in this setting, typically exploring wrong reasoning paths and producing incomplete answers. To facilitate research on multi-hop ambiguity, we introduce MultI-hop Reasoning with AmbiGuity Evaluation for Illusory Questions (MIRAGE), a benchmark designed to analyze and evaluate this challenging intersection of ambiguity interpretation and multi-hop reasoning. MIRAGE contains 1,142 high-quality examples of ambiguous multi-hop questions, categorized under a taxonomy of syntactic, general, and semantic ambiguity, and curated through a rigorous multi-LLM verification pipeline. Our experiments reveal that even state-of-the-art models struggle on MIRAGE, confirming that resolving ambiguity combined with multi-step inference is a distinct and significant challenge. To establish a robust baseline, we propose CLarifying Ambiguity with a Reasoning and InstructiON (CLARION), a multi-agent framework that significantly outperforms existing approaches on MIRAGE, paving the way for more adaptive and robust reasoning systems.