Kun Wang
Publications
Disentangling Deception and Hallucination Failures in LLMs
Failures in large language models (LLMs) are often analyzed from a behavioral perspective, where incorrect outputs in factual question answering are commonly associated with missing knowledge. In this work, focusing on entity-based factual queries, we suggest that such a view may conflate different failure mechanisms, and propose an internal, mechanism-oriented perspective that separates Knowledge Existence from Behavior Expression. Under this formulation, hallucination and deception correspond to two qualitatively different failure modes that may appear similar at the output level but differ in their underlying mechanisms. To study this distinction, we construct a controlled environment for entity-centric factual questions in which knowledge is preserved while behavioral expression is selectively altered, enabling systematic analysis of four behavioral cases. We analyze these failure modes through representation separability, sparse interpretability, and inference-time activation steering.
Diagnosing Knowledge Conflict in Multimodal Long-Chain Reasoning
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in long chain-of-thought reasoning often fail when different knowledge sources provide conflicting signals. We formalize these failures under a unified notion of knowledge conflict, distinguishing input-level objective conflict from process-level effective conflict. Through probing internal representations, we reveal that: (I) Linear Separability: different conflict types are explicitly encoded as linearly separable features rather than entangled; (II) Depth Localization: conflict signals concentrate in mid-to-late layers, indicating a distinct processing stage for conflict encoding; (III) Hierarchical Consistency: aggregating noisy token-level signals along trajectories robustly recovers input-level conflict types; and (IV) Directional Asymmetry: reinforcing the model's implicit source preference under conflict is far easier than enforcing the opposite source. Our findings provide a mechanism-level view of multimodal reasoning under knowledge conflict and enable principled diagnosis and control of long-CoT failures.
CSR-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Cross-modal Safety and Reliability of MLLMs
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) enable interaction over both text and images, but their safety behavior can be driven by unimodal shortcuts instead of true joint intent understanding. We introduce CSR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating cross-modal reliability through four stress-testing interaction patterns spanning Safety, Over-rejection, Bias, and Hallucination, covering 61 fine-grained types. Each instance is constructed to require integrated image-text interpretation, and we additionally provide paired text-only controls to diagnose modality-induced behavior shifts. We evaluate 16 state-of-the-art MLLMs and observe systematic cross-modal alignment gaps. Models show weak safety awareness, strong language dominance under interference, and consistent performance degradation from text-only controls to multimodal inputs. We also observe a clear trade-off between reducing over-rejection and maintaining safe, non-discriminatory behavior, suggesting that some apparent safety gains may come from refusal-oriented heuristics rather than robust intent understanding. WARNING: This paper contains unsafe contents.