Linan Yue
Publications
When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?
The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capabilities in summarization, fact checking, and literature triage, making the integration of AI into peer review increasingly attractive -- and, in practice, unavoidable. Yet early deployments and informal adoption have exposed acute failure modes. Recent incidents have revealed that hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts can steer LLM-generated reviews toward unjustifiably positive judgments. Complementary studies have also demonstrated brittleness to adversarial phrasing, authority and length biases, and hallucinated claims. These episodes raise a central question for scholarly communication: when AI reviews science, can we trust the AI referee? This paper provides a security- and reliability-centered analysis of AI peer review. We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level. We instantiate this taxonomy with four treatment-control probes on a stratified set of ICLR 2025 submissions, using two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores. Together, this taxonomy and experimental audit provide an evidence-based baseline for assessing and tracking the reliability of AI peer review and highlight concrete failure points to guide targeted, testable mitigations.
Towards Safer Large Reasoning Models by Promoting Safety Decision-Making before Chain-of-Thought Generation
Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieved remarkable performance via chain-of-thought (CoT), but recent studies showed that such enhanced reasoning capabilities are at the expense of significantly degraded safety capabilities. In this paper, we reveal that LRMs' safety degradation occurs only after CoT is enabled, and this degradation is not observed when CoT is disabled. This observation motivates us to consider encouraging LRMs to make safety decisions before CoT generation. To this end, we propose a novel safety alignment method that promotes the safety decision-making of LRMs before starting CoT generation. Specifically, we first utilize a Bert-based classifier to extract safety decision signals from a safe model (e.g., a CoT-disabled LRM) and then integrate these signals into LRMs' safety alignment as auxiliary supervision. In this way, the safety gradients can be backpropagated to the LRMs' latent representations, effectively strengthening the LRMs' safety decision-making abilities against CoT generation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method substantially improves the safety capabilities of LRMs while effectively maintaining LRMs' general reasoning performance.
Bridging Efficiency and Transparency: Explainable CoT Compression in Multimodal Large Reasoning Models
Long chains of thought (Long CoTs) are widely employed in multimodal reasoning models to tackle complex tasks by capturing detailed visual information. However, these Long CoTs are often excessively lengthy and contain redundant reasoning steps, which can hinder inference efficiency. Compressing these long CoTs is a natural solution, yet existing approaches face two major challenges: (1) they may compromise the integrity of visual-textual reasoning by removing essential alignment cues, and (2) the compression process lacks explainability, making it difficult to discern which information is critical. To address these problems, we propose XMCC, an eXplainable Multimodal CoT Compressor that formulates compression as a sequential decision-making process optimized via reinforcement learning. XMCC can effectively shorten reasoning trajectories while preserving key reasoning steps and answer correctness, and simultaneously generates natural-language explanations for its compression decisions. Extensive experiments on representative multimodal reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that XMCC not only reduces reasoning length but also provides explainable explanations, validating its effectiveness.
Guided by Trajectories: Repairing and Rewarding Tool-Use Trajectories for Tool-Integrated Reasoning
Tool-Integrated Reasoning (TIR) enables large language models (LLMs) to solve complex tasks by interacting with external tools, yet existing approaches depend on high-quality synthesized trajectories selected by scoring functions and sparse outcome-based rewards, providing limited and biased supervision for learning TIR. To address these challenges, in this paper, we propose AutoTraj, a two-stage framework that automatically learns TIR by repairing and rewarding tool-use trajectories. Specifically, in the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) stage, AutoTraj generates multiple candidate tool-use trajectories for each query and evaluates them along multiple dimensions. High-quality trajectories are directly retained, while low-quality ones are repaired using a LLM (i.e., LLM-as-Repairer). The resulting repaired and high-quality trajectories form a synthetic SFT dataset, while each repaired trajectory paired with its original low-quality counterpart constitutes a dataset for trajectory preference modeling. In the reinforcement learning (RL) stage, based on the preference dataset, we train a trajectory-level reward model to assess the quality of reasoning paths and combine it with outcome and format rewards, thereby explicitly guiding the optimization toward reliable TIR behaviors. Experiments on real-world benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of AutoTraj in TIR.