Junyuan Hong

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in high-stakes domains, understanding contextual factors that may modulate their decision-making becomes critical. While LLMs are trained to perceive and resonate with users' emotions, it remains unclear whether induced emotion can influence their sequential decision-making. We investigate this question using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a classic psychological paradigm for studying decision-making under uncertainty, combined with an imagination-based emotion induction procedure. We first validate the feasibility of this paradigm by confirming that LLMs can sense strong, distinguishable emotions from context and that LLM agents can learn from sequential interactions in a human-like pace. With the validated setup, we find that, different from humans, induced emotion does not significantly bias the decision dynamics of LLM agents on average. However, the effects of anger are conditioned: inducing anger makes LLM agents less sensitive to penalties for bad decisions, and in early stages of the game, anger can lower exploration, locking decisions into a few choices early. These findings reveal the subtle yet distinct effects of induced emotion on LLM decision-making compared to human behavior, and provide a tool for future research on affective modulation of LLM agents.

We propose and test the **LLM Brain Rot Hypothesis**: continual exposure to *junk web text* induces lasting cognitive decline in large language models (LLMs). To unveil junk effects, we designed a novel controlled experiment on real Twitter/X corpora, by constructing junk and reverse-controlled datasets via two orthogonal operationalizations: **M1** (engagement degree) and **M2** (semantic quality), with matched token scale and training operations across conditions. Compared to the control group, continual pre-training of 4 LLMs on the junk dataset causes non-trivial declines (Hedges' $g>0.3$) on reasoning, long-context understanding, safety, and inflating "dark traits" (e.g., psychopathy, narcissism). The gradual mixtures of junk and control datasets also yield dose-response cognition decay: for example, under M1, ARC-Challenge with Chain-of-Thought drops $72.1 \rightarrow 57.2$ and RULER-CWE $83.7 \rightarrow 52.3$ as junk ratio rises from $0$% to $100$%. Error forensics reveal several key insights. First, we identify *thought-skipping as the primary lesion in reasoning*: models increasingly truncate or skip chains. Second, partial but incomplete healing is observed: scaling instruction tuning and clean continual pre-training improve the declined cognition, yet cannot restore baseline capability, suggesting persistent representational drift rather than format mismatch. Finally, we discover that the popularity, a non-semantic metric, of a tweet is a better indicator of the Brain Rot effect than the length in M1. Together, the results provide significant, multi-perspective evidence that \textit{social effects of data could be a causal driver of LLM capability decay in continual pre-training}, thereby motivating routine "cognitive health checks" for deployed and evolving LLMs.

Reflection is a powerful mechanism for LLM reasoning, yet its effectiveness hinges on accurately attributing failures to specific reasoning steps, a capability that current models notably lack. Existing failure attribution methods either require expensive step-by-step counterfactual testing that scales poorly with trajectory length, or treat reasoning traces as flat sequences that ignore the inherent non-linear logical dependencies. We propose a hypergraph-based paired failure attribution (HPFA) framework that attributes the failure root cause by comparing the hyperedges of the targeted failure reasoning path against a reference successful path. By reducing the search space, our method efficiently localizes root causes and enables scalable synthesis of attribution data for training a lightweight attributor model via supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and agentic coding tasks demonstrate that HPFA can dramatically increase attribution accuracy and efficiency, and the trained attributor consistently improves reasoning accuracy at test time, outperforming baselines that lack graph structure or paired analysis.