REVIEW 11 cited by
Trading Inference-Time Compute for Adversarial Robustness
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
Trading Inference-Time Compute for Adversarial Robustness
read the original abstract
We conduct experiments on the impact of increasing inference-time compute in reasoning models (specifically OpenAI o1-preview and o1-mini) on their robustness to adversarial attacks. We find that across a variety of attacks, increased inference-time compute leads to improved robustness. In many cases (with important exceptions), the fraction of model samples where the attack succeeds tends to zero as the amount of test-time compute grows. We perform no adversarial training for the tasks we study, and we increase inference-time compute by simply allowing the models to spend more compute on reasoning, independently of the form of attack. Our results suggest that inference-time compute has the potential to improve adversarial robustness for Large Language Models. We also explore new attacks directed at reasoning models, as well as settings where inference-time compute does not improve reliability, and speculate on the reasons for these as well as ways to address them.
Forward citations
Cited by 11 Pith papers
-
From Monoliths to Swarms: A Study of Attack Surface Evolution in the Transition to Multi-Agent Web Systems
A new 'Telephone Loop' attack stalls multi-agent web systems in delegation cycles, succeeding in about 80% of baseline runs for three frontier models while failing against single-agent systems.
-
Addressing Over-Refusal in LLMs with Competing Rewards
SEAR trains one LLM via adversarial process rewards to explore harmful reasoning paths but flip to safe outputs, reducing over-refusal while preserving safety.
-
Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges
Per-bias selection of a cross-family LLM auditor lifts biased-judgment accuracy from 0.805/0.824 baselines to 0.884.
-
Attention-Guided Reward for Reinforcement Learning-based Jailbreak against Large Reasoning Models
An attention-guided RL reward combined with diverse persuasion strategies produces higher attack success rates against large reasoning models than prior jailbreak methods.
-
Controllable LLM Reasoning via Sparse Autoencoder-Based Steering
SAE-Steering finds, via keyword-logit recall plus effectiveness ranking, sparse-autoencoder features that steer a reasoning model into a chosen reasoning strategy, beating baseline steering by ~15% on a judge-based me...
-
Reasoning Up the Instruction Ladder for Controllable Language Models
RLVR on ~7K verifiable system/user conflict examples teaches LLMs to prioritize higher-priority instructions, improving instruction-hierarchy and safety benchmarks.
-
SafeSearch: Automated Red-Teaming of LLM-Based Search Agents
An automated red-teaming framework and 300-case benchmark show that a single unreliable website can induce unsafe responses in LLM search agents, with attack success rates up to 90.5%.
-
Outcome-Guided Distillation: A Teacher-Student Framework to Advance VLM Reasoning in Autonomous Driving
An outcome-guided teacher-student framework for VLM driving, where a teacher generates reflective reasoning from ground-truth waypoints, a student distills it, and a separate decoder converts the reasoning into waypoi...
-
Adaptive Probe-based Steering for Robust LLM Jailbreaking
Adaptive probe-based steering guided by model extraction and activation statistics improves LLM jailbreak success rates from 6% to 70% average harmfulness without extra contrastive prompts or manual tuning.
-
Contrastive Reasoning Alignment: Reinforcement Learning from Hidden Representations
CRAFT uses contrastive representation learning and RL on hidden states to align reasoning models for improved safety against jailbreaks, reporting 79% and 87.7% gains over base models.
-
A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthiness in Reasoning with Large Language Models
A structured literature survey concluding that reasoning capabilities do not automatically make LLMs more trustworthy and can introduce new vulnerabilities in safety, robustness, and privacy.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.