Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Adversarial Training for High-Stakes Reliability

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2205.01663 v5 pith:OD4YYGC7 submitted 2022-05-03 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords adversarialtraininghigh-stakesreliabilitypowerfulwithoutadversariesbetter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In the future, powerful AI systems may be deployed in high-stakes settings, where a single failure could be catastrophic. One technique for improving AI safety in high-stakes settings is adversarial training, which uses an adversary to generate examples to train on in order to achieve better worst-case performance. In this work, we used a safe language generation task (``avoid injuries'') as a testbed for achieving high reliability through adversarial training. We created a series of adversarial training techniques -- including a tool that assists human adversaries -- to find and eliminate failures in a classifier that filters text completions suggested by a generator. In our task, we determined that we can set very conservative classifier thresholds without significantly impacting the quality of the filtered outputs. We found that adversarial training increased robustness to the adversarial attacks that we trained on -- doubling the time for our contractors to find adversarial examples both with our tool (from 13 to 26 minutes) and without (from 20 to 44 minutes) -- without affecting in-distribution performance. We hope to see further work in the high-stakes reliability setting, including more powerful tools for enhancing human adversaries and better ways to measure high levels of reliability, until we can confidently rule out the possibility of catastrophic deployment-time failures of powerful models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 9 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with High-Confidence Safety Constraints

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HC-RLHF returns an aligned language model only after a held-out safety test certifies, with probability at least 1-delta, that expected harm (as judged by a learned cost model) is below a chosen threshold.

  2. Safe Inference-Time Alignment via Lagrangian Reward Augmentation

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Dualizing Safe RLHF yields a one-dimensional convex calibration of λ that defines a drop-in safety-aware reward for Best-of-N and token-level inference-time decoders.

  3. PRM-Free Security Alignment of Large Models via Red Teaming and Adversarial Training

    cs.CR 2025-07 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A PRM-free alignment pipeline combining genetic algorithm red teaming and multi-objective adversarial training is claimed to beat PRM-based methods at 61% lower cost, but the experiments are unverifiable.

Pith tools