arXiv:2607. 13039v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety evaluations for dual-use biology assistants often measure base-model capability, refusal behavior, or jailbreak success.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2609.01487v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Skill-augmented agents load reusable skills as persistent runtime context, improving task performance but also giving malicious skills a durable chan...
arXiv:2607. 22926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: High-impact generative AI makes catastrophic misuse a lifecycle-control problem, not merely a prompt-filtering problem.
The paper evaluates safety monitors by measuring recall only on prompts that the target model actually answers, rather than on all harmful prompts. Across several guard systems, recall at a 1% false‑positive rate drops sharply when focusing on answered prompts, with monitors catching refused requests 1.1–6.4 times more often than answered ones. Rewriting prompts to be less explicit dramatically increases compliance and reveals that many harmful requests slip past monitors, especially when phrasing is softened. Fine‑tuning guards on these rewritten prompts improves recall from 0.24 to 0.89 on answered requests and generalizes to unseen benchmarks.
The paper investigates whether response safety can be measured by the cosine similarity between a response embedding and the mean embedding of known‑safe responses. Using four frozen encoders and prompt‑controlled datasets, the authors find that a simple prototype (mean safe embedding) performs poorly (ROC‑AUC 0.457‑0.545) while an explicit safe‑minus‑unsafe reference achieves higher scores (0.588‑0.738). The study shows that a class mean is merely a location, not a safety direction, and that a reference with sufficient unsafe mass is needed to orient safety judgments.
arXiv:2607. 12792v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Jailbreak-robustness research typically evaluates safety through generated responses using an LLM-as-judge approach.
arXiv:2606. 08919v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents begin to take real, irreversible actions (shell commands, file edits, deploys), the standard safety pattern is a human-in-the-loop approval gate: risky actions pause and wait for a person.