arXiv:2603. 26846v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) expand in capability and application scope, their trustworthiness becomes critical.
arXiv:2607. 20444v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can produce deceptive responses: outputs that mislead users in service of a contextually or experimentally induced goal.
arXiv:2606. 31748v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety training on language models often induces over-refusal: improved safety on harmful prompts at the cost of increased refusal on harmless ones.
arXiv:2603. 01437v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As chain of thought (CoT) has become central to scaling reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), it has also emerged as a promising tool for interpretability, suggesting the opportunity to understand model decisions through verbalized reasoning.
arXiv:2606. 01441v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) excel in reasoning and knowledge-intensive tasks but remain vulnerable to prompt-level adversarial attacks that preserve intent while triggering commonsense hallucinations.
arXiv:2607. 08017v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large-Language Models (LLMs) can be prone to flawed and unfaithful reasoning that decoding strategies like Self-Consistency (SC) fail to detect as they evaluate only final-answer agreement while ignoring the logical validity of intermediate steps.
arXiv:2604. 23270v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a simple and effective way to elicit step-by-step solutions from large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2602. 14095v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Monitoring chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is a foundational safety technique for large language model agents; however, this oversight is compromised if models learn to conceal their reasoning.
Persuasion is a core dynamic of natural language communication, shaping how large language models (LLMs) update beliefs, resolve disagreements, and reach decisions. As LLMs increasingly debate, advise, and think collaboratively with humans and each other, resistance to harmful persuasion becomes a core requirement for reliable behavior.
Warning: This paper studies stereotypes and biases, and contains potentially disturbing examples, used for illustration purposes only. Our findings should not be interpreted as an argument against alignment.
arXiv:2608. 09542v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieve remarkable success on complex tasks but remain vulnerable to harmful prompts that induce unsafe outputs.
arXiv:2607. 21090v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose a Reinforcement Learning (RL) method to directly optimize the faithfulness of self-explanations - the extent to which a model's generated reasoning accurately reflects its internal decision-making process.
arXiv:2604. 08169v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Alignment in LLMs is more brittle than commonly assumed: misalignment can be induced by adversarial prompts, benign fine-tuning, emergent misalignment, and goal misgeneralization.