arXiv:2606. 28843v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fine-tuning a large language model is a ubiquitous method for enhancing its capability on a specific downstream task.
By Will Hawkins, Kaivalya Rawal, Jonathan Rystr{\o}m, Stratis Tsirtsis, Zihao Fu, Greta Warren, Ryan Brown, Eoin Delaney, Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, Chris Russell
The paper identifies a vulnerability in large language models where harmful intent can be hidden within benign narratives, a phenomenon termed Semantic Camouflage. By examining latent activation patterns across several small language model families, the authors discover an "Intent Horizon"—a layer depth where harmful intent representations collapse. They propose Latent Intent Verification (LIV), a lightweight probing defense that detects harmful intent in early layers and outperforms existing guardrails on the PKU-SafeRLHF dataset.
By Md. Hasib Ur Rahman
arXiv:2608. 14577v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier large language models (LLMs) safety evaluation has largely treated harmful generation as an attack outcome rather than as an object of analysis.
By Zhouyuan Ma, Yutao Wu, Hanxun Huang, Xiang Zheng, Xiao Liu, Yixin Cao, Zuxuan Wu, Xingjun Ma, Yu-Gang Jiang
The paper presents an instruction‑tuned large language model (LLM) based on Qwen3 that is fine‑tuned for hate speech mitigation by unifying 36 English hate speech datasets. The authors show that this generalist LLM achieves state‑of‑the‑art performance on in‑domain benchmarks and delivers significant gains in cross‑domain and cross‑lingual generalization, outperforming specialist encoder‑based classifiers.
By Lukas Edman, Daryna Dementieva, Alexander Fraser
The paper examines how automated safety systems unevenly flag harmful content, disproportionately labeling African American English as offensive and misclassifying content from drag queens and white nationalists. It identifies seven failure modes rooted in vocabulary-based harm detection and proposes an evaluation protocol that highlights gaps in performance across languages. Applied to five open systems in eleven languages, the study finds that none achieve native-speaker accuracy, and higher capability often increases discrimination, widening the disparity between best- and worst-served language communities.
By Gabriel Lars Sabadin, Dr Nicola Harding, Sarah Kingston
arXiv:2607. 02079v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present HaloGuard 1.
By Navaneeth Sangameswaran, Preetham S, Ashmiya Lenin