arXiv:2603. 24126v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: When language models are trained by reinforcement learning (RL) to write probabilistic programs, they can artificially inflate their marginal-likelihood reward by producing programs whose data distribution fails to normalise instead of fitting the data better.
arXiv:2606. 04778v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety-aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to interventions during inference that redirect generation toward harmful outputs.
Safety training for large language models (LLMs) is conducted predominantly in English, leaving uncertain how well safety mechanisms generalize to low-resource languages and mixed-language code-switching. We show that this creates an epistemic gap in which models confidently generate harmful responses for inputs that fall outside the distribution of their safety training.
arXiv:2607. 01859v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety training for large language models (LLMs) is conducted predominantly in English, leaving uncertain how well safety mechanisms generalize to low-resource languages and mixed-language code-switching.
Large language models (LLMs) are rigorously aligned to refuse harmful requests, a process that inherently cultivates a latent capacity to evaluate and recognize unsafe content. In this work, we reveal that this advanced safety awareness inadvertently introduces a fatal vulnerability.
arXiv:2606. 05614v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are rigorously aligned to refuse harmful requests, a process that inherently cultivates a latent capacity to evaluate and recognize unsafe content.
arXiv:2606. 15385v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reward hacking, where AI systems exploit misspecified objectives to achieve high reward without satisfying intended goals, remains a central challenge in AI safety.
arXiv:2606. 31159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming software development, yet their use in security-critical contexts raises a key question: do models know when their generated code is insecure?
arXiv:2603. 17673v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM agents are becoming increasingly important in the security domain, but leading systems are often closed-source, cloud-based, hard to reproduce or use with sensitive code.
As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in high-stakes domains, adversaries may poison training data to implant backdoors: hidden triggers that covertly manipulate model behavior at inference time. We ask whether a defender can recover such a trigger under realistic affordances, namely white-box access to the weights and knowledge of the behavior of concern, but no training data, no trusted reference model, no knowledge of the trigger, and no certainty that the model is poisoned.
arXiv:2602. 12124v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While most AI alignment research focuses on preventing models from generating explicitly harmful content, a more subtle risk arises from capability-seeking RL training in vulnerable environments.
arXiv:2607. 20286v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose a novel framework for computing rigorous bounds on the probability that a large language model (LLM) generates harmful output to a given prompt.
arXiv:2607. 26849v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in high-stakes domains, adversaries may poison training data to implant backdoors: hidden triggers that covertly manipulate model behavior at inference time.