arXiv:2608. 03838v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning-based guard models improve LLM safeguards, but decoding explicit rationales for every interaction makes them costly to deploy.
By Zhinan Liu, Jie Li, Mingyu Kang, Jiayi Ji
arXiv:2607. 06326v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models deployed in open-world applications require safety guardrails that are both robust to complex risks and efficient enough for low-latency runtime moderation.
By He Liu, Changtao Miao, Xinjie Yang, Tianle Song, Yin Wu, Junchi Chen, Bintao He, Xinyuan Zhang, Bo Zhang, Shi Yan, Wei Lu, Wei Wang, Danyang Xu, Jiansheng Cai, Zhe Li
arXiv:2610.18304v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Guardrail approaches that rely on reasoning-based large language models (LLM) improve safety decisions, but come with substantial inference overhead du...
By Md Asiful Islam, Fahmida Alam, Mihai Surdeanu
arXiv:2607. 17575v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We propose ARBITER, a novel LLM guardrail framework that introduces two key ideas: (i) dual-hypothesis reasoning, a reasoning method for LLM guardrails that explicitly considers both safe and unsafe interpretations of a prompt before making a safety decision, and (ii) multi-component supervised fine-tuning (MC-SFT), a structured training loss for reasoning-based guardrails that decomposes LLM outputs into logical components and weights them according to their importance.
By Md Asiful Islam, Mihai Surdeanu
Enterprise generative AI applications require robust safety mechanisms that can accommodate diverse risk postures, evolving policies, and varying latency constraints. Current guardrail solutions often...
ReasoningShield introduces a benchmark and lightweight models for detecting unsafe content in the intermediate reasoning steps of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs). The benchmark contains 9.2K annotated (Query, CoT) pairs across 10 risk categories, 3 safety levels, and 8 LRMs, and the proposed models achieve 91.8% F1, outperforming existing moderation tools by significant margins. The study highlights that current moderation tools degrade by up to 35.2% on Chain-of-Thought reasoning compared to traditional answer moderation.
By Changyi Li, Jiayi Wang, Xudong Pan, Geng Hong, Min Yang