arXiv AI
Semantic Fibers and Cross-Gram Interference: A Calculus of Safety Drift in Overcomplete Representations
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 14
Semantic Fibers and Cross-Gram Interference: A Calculus of Safety Drift in Overcomplete Representations
A deployed language model may refuse a harmful request in English yet comply with its faithful translation, revealing a cross-lingual safety failure that cannot be characterized reliably by output beh...
arXiv AI
Aug 5
Single Canonical Prompts Underestimate LLM Safety's Surface-Form Sensitivity
arXiv:2608. 02665v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A benchmark score is a measurement instrument, yet most benchmarks read each item at a single canonical surface form.
arXiv AI
Jun 2
Low-Resource Safety Failures Are Action Failures, Not Representation Failures
arXiv:2606. 01196v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety alignment learned in high-resource languages transfers poorly to low-resource languages.
arXiv AI
Sep 24
Hard Negatives Reveal What Easy Negatives Hide: Cross-Lingual Harmfulness Representations Degrade with Resource Tier Under Hard Negatives
The study investigates how safety alignment in large language models, trained mainly in English, transfers to other languages. While models show near-perfect harmfulness detection (AUROC > 0.98) using unrelated harmless prompts (easy negatives), performance drops sharply in low‑resource languages when using surface‑similar benign prompts (hard negatives). This degradation persists across multiple languages and models, indicating that easy‑negative evaluation alone cannot confirm cross‑lingual harmfulness representation quality.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 6
Consistency Has a Computable Blind Spot: A Commutation Theory of Label-Free Reliability for Vision-Language Figure Reading
Label-free reliability for vision-language models rests on invariance: perturb the input and a faithful reader's answer should not change. This has a known blind spot, a systematic misreading survives the perturbation and gets certified wrong, which we show is computable, not just real: an error is invisible to an edit exactly when the two commute, so the errors a suite cannot reach form its joint centralizer, a set that shrinks as edits are added and can be written down rather than guessed at.
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 7
Consistency Has a Computable Blind Spot: A Commutation Theory of Label-Free Reliability for Vision-Language Figure Reading
arXiv:2608. 05675v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Label-free reliability for vision-language models rests on invariance: perturb the input and a faithful reader's answer should not change.