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: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.
The paper audits a developer‑accessible on‑device language model, revealing that it can confidently produce incorrect answers while refusing benign prompts, a phenomenon termed task‑asymmetric miscalibration. The model’s confident outputs are surface‑indistinguishable, with classifiers based on user‑visible features failing to separate correct from wrong responses. The authors propose a model‑agnostic audit protocol, a surface‑indistinguishability test, and a black‑box consistency wrapper that improves reliability without requiring model access.
The paper investigates how fine‑tuning large language models with a small number of harmful examples can erode their refusal behavior, and explores whether localizing safety‑related behavior to specific layers or directions can provide robust defenses. Experiments across six checkpoints from four model families show that harmful and benign prompts remain linearly separable after attack, and that patching clean hidden states or freezing layers up to a transition depth can restore refusal. However, attackers can bypass these defenses by spreading updates or targeting singular directions, indicating that adaptive fine‑tuning can defeat localized repairs and highlighting the need for multiple defensive checks.
arXiv:2608.21766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Both capability and safety benchmarks rest upon the assumption that the behavior of language models undergoing a test is informative about their beha...
arXiv:2609.35889v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents select and execute third-party artifacts. Different implementations can return the requested output while producing...
AutoTuneBench introduces a trustworthy measurement protocol for evaluating how large language model agents auto‑tune GPU kernels and serving engines. The benchmark addresses four failure modes—strawman baselines, machine‑dependent timing, saturated tasks, and infrastructure defects—by enforcing code‑frozen protocols, database validation, anti‑cheat checks, pre‑registered comparisons, and external result anchoring. Using this protocol, the authors demonstrate that previously reported speedups are inflated, revealing more modest improvements across different engines and machines.
arXiv:2606. 07808v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning language models deployed in agentic workflows must follow an instruction hierarchy: when instructions from different sources conflict, the model should obey the highest-privilege applicable instruction.
arXiv:2609.38956v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Routing signals of modern vision transformers -- expert gates, attention-residual weights and halting scores -- often improve probes that predict wheth...
arXiv:2607. 16345v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern agentic systems increasingly rely on skills: installable packages of natural language and code that teach an LLM agent to perform a domain task.
FDE-Bench is a benchmark that tests large language model agents on 136 deployment‑configuration tasks involving Docker, Compose, and Kubernetes, in both greenfield and diagnose‑and‑repair scenarios. Agents submit declarative artifacts that are rebuilt and redeployed in a clean environment, and four binary check layers evaluate build, readiness, behavior, and specification conformance without an LLM judge. The benchmark includes a release gate, detailed check annotations, adversarial strategies, and reports that state‑of‑the‑art models resolve 52.9–75.0 % of tasks, while zero‑intelligence baselines solve none.
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.