arXiv:2606. 15980v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Activation monitors-lightweight probes trained on a language model's internal representations-are an increasingly common layer in deployment safety stacks.
arXiv:2607. 11475v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety alignment in large language models can be fragile under fine-tuning, as even benign task adaptation may increase harmful compliance.
Safety alignment in large language models can be fragile under fine-tuning, as even benign task adaptation may increase harmful compliance. Existing defenses mainly follow two directions: they either intervene during or after fine-tuning through retraining or weight modification, which can be costly and may hurt task performance, or they use model-agnostic safety classifiers, which may miss failures specific to a given fine-tuned checkpoint.
arXiv:2608. 14089v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety classifiers deployed with large language models often fail for two reasons: their decisions reflect the policy learned during training rather than the deployer's desired policy, and their performance degrades as deployment traffic evolves.
arXiv:2607. 20436v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety evaluations often assume that behavior observed during testing reflects behavior in ordinary use, but fine-tuning can break this assumption.
arXiv:2606. 10487v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deploying large language models in user-facing systems requires efficient output safety filtering.
arXiv:2606. 09864v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Key-value (KV) cache quantization is widely used to reduce Large Language Model (LLM) inference memory, yet existing evaluations solely focus on measuring perplexity and accuracy without assessing the safety impact.
arXiv:2607. 14570v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI software development agents are increasingly capable of modifying infrastructure and security critical systems, creating risks where an agent completes its assigned task while covertly weakening safeguards through actions such as broadening permissions, degrading logging, or introducing persistence mechanisms.
arXiv:2603. 28590v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate chains of thought (CoTs) that are not always causally responsible for their final outputs.
arXiv:2606. 11063v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI control protocols oversee untrusted models by monitoring their actions and modifying potentially unsafe steps, often using a trusted model.
arXiv:2608. 02786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems can fail silently.
arXiv:2606. 01695v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Adversaries can implant latent harmful behavior by poisoning as few as 1% of fine-tuning examples.
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?