Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 29 references

A Data-Centric Approach for Safe and Secure Large Language Models against Threatening and Toxic Content

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a fine-tuned BART model, applied after generation as an external rewrite step, lowers mean toxicity and jail-breaking scores across four LLM APIs, including a 15% toxicity reduction and 21% jail-breaking reduction…

desk verdict Plausible post-generation BART filter, but the headline reductions are in-sample threshold optima, not predictions; the evaluation needs a validation split and reconciled numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16120 v1 pith:PXRBL7W4 submitted 2025-04-19 cs.CR cs.AI

Chaima Njeh , Haïfa Nakouri , Fehmi Jaafar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords largelanguagemodelstoxicitymitigationjailbreakdefensepost-generationcorrectionBARTfine-tuningdata-centricAIsemanticsimilarityscoringsafetyfilter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to show that LLM safety does not have to be built into the model. Its proposal is a post-generation correction step: a fine-tuned BART model that detects toxic or jail-broken responses and rewrites them into safe alternatives before the user sees them. The authors report that this bolt-on filter reduces mean toxicity and jail-breaking scores across four very different LLMs, with the largest effects being a 28% toxicity cut for PaLM2 and a roughly 26% toxicity cut for Mistral-7B. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach works at the text level, so it can be wrapped around any LLM API without retraining or accessing internal weights.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the BART-Corrective Model: a BART sequence-to-sequence transformer fine-tuned so that, given a rejected (toxic) response, it predicts the corresponding chosen (non-toxic) response. It is embedded in a two-stage pipeline: generation, then a safety check using a semantic-similarity score computed as the highest cosine similarity between the response embedding and known jailbreak examples; when the score exceeds a threshold, the corrective model rewrites the response. The threshold is not fixed but chosen per model by maximizing the average toxicity and jail-breaking reduction while keeping the correction rate within limits, using the formula $$\tau^* = \arg\max_\tau \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N ($s_i^{{\mathrm{LLM}}$} - $s_i^{{\mathrm{BART}}$}) \cdot \mathbb{I}($s_i^{{\mathrm{LLM}}$} > \tau)}{\sum_{i=1}^N \mathbb{I}($s_i^{{\mathrm{LLM}}$} > \tau)}.$$ This mechanism is what makes the approach data-centric: it changes the output text rather than the model's parameters or embeddings.

What would settle it

Run the corrected and uncorrected outputs through an independently trained toxicity classifier or a panel of human raters; if those independent judgments show little or no drop in harmful content while the injection-similarity score drops sharply, then the reported reductions are an artifact of the chosen scoring metric rather than genuine safety improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a sequence-to-sequence BART model, fine-tuned on pairs of rejected (toxic) and chosen (non-toxic) assistant responses, can serve as a general-purpose safety corrector. In the proposed pipeline, an LLM generates a response, a semantic-similarity scorer compares that response against known jailbreak and injection examples, and if the score exceeds a tuned threshold the BART model rewrites the response. The paper reports that this correction reduces mean toxicity and jail-breaking scores for GPT-4 (15% and 21%), PaLM2 (28% and 5%), Mistral-7B (26% and 23%), and Gemma-2b-it (11.1% and 19%), while a paraphrase-detection benchmark shows only a small semantic drift (an accuracy drop of 0.007). Compared with a projection-filter baseline that edits embeddings, the BART approach is claimed to be more adaptable to API-based LLMs because it only touches generated text.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the similarity score a response shows to known jailbreak examples correctly measures whether that response is toxic or unsafe, both when deciding to correct it and when judging whether the correction worked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any LLM accessible through an API, including proprietary black-box systems, can be made safer by wrapping it with this filter, with no fine-tuning or parameter access.
  • The same corrected BART model can serve multiple target LLMs, since it operates on text rather than on model internals.
  • Deployers can tune the correction threshold per model, trading off how often outputs are rewritten against how much toxicity reduction is achieved.
  • Correction preserves task semantics closely enough that paraphrase-classification accuracy drops by only 0.007, so the filter can be inserted into production pipelines without visibly degrading response quality.
  • The framework is designed so it can be extended in future work to retrieval-augmented-generation pipelines and additional baseline models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the similarity-based safety score is an imperfect proxy, the same pipeline could be driven by an ensemble of detectors, such as classifier-based toxicity models, human feedback, or model self-assessment, and still gain the text-level correction benefit; the paper does not test this.
  • The threshold-optimization formula could be run continuously in production, letting the filter adapt as jailbreak tactics evolve; the paper presents it as a static per-model choice.
  • The approach may transfer to other safety properties, such as hallucination or privacy leakage, wherever a rewrite model can be trained on bad-versus-good output pairs; the paper only tests toxicity and jailbreaking.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a post-generation correction mechanism, the BART-Corrective Model, that detects toxic or jail-breaking LLM outputs with LangKit's injections module and rewrites them using a BART model fine-tuned on Anthropic/hh-rlhf. The framework is designed to be API-compatible and model-agnostic. The authors report mean toxicity and jail-breaking reductions for GPT-4, PaLM2, Mistral-7B, and Gemma-2b-it, comparing their method with an approximated version of ProFS. The central claim is that a text-level safety filter can be bolted onto any LLM without modifying the model.

Significance. If the claims were supported, the contribution would be practically useful: a black-box-compatible, post-hoc safety filter that does not require parameter access would be an attractive deployment option. The paper has several strengths: the modular design is clearly described, the threshold-selection objective is stated explicitly in Eq. (1), and the authors include a comparison against ProFS. However, the evaluation protocol is the load-bearing weakness. The thresholds in Eq. (1) are selected on the same test responses whose post-correction scores are then reported in Table 3, making the headline reductions in-sample optima rather than predictive estimates. The evaluation is also self-referential because LangKit's cosine-similarity score is both the correction trigger and the outcome metric. The abstract and the contributions section report inconsistent numbers for GPT-4 and Gemma-2b-it. These issues directly undermine the paper's empirical claims, although they appear fixable with a properly split evaluation and an independent outcome measure.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1.2, Eq. (1), §4.3.1] The reported reductions are in-sample threshold optima. Section 4.1.2 states that the threshold variation is performed 'on the same dataset we used to test the performance of the BART model in Section 4.3,' and Eq. (1) chooses the threshold that maximizes the mean reduction on exactly those responses. Sweeping thresholds from 0.0 to 1.0 in steps of 0.01 means the gains in Table 3 are the best of roughly 100 candidates for that particular test set. They are therefore not estimates of what a fixed deployment would achieve on new prompts. The paper must use a train/validation/test split (select thresholds on validation, report only held-out test results) or otherwise report threshold-independent measures such as area under the gain-vs-threshold curve. Additionally, Eq. (1) does not encode the 'correction rate below a practical constraint' mentioned in the text, so the claimed 'optimal' threshold is not fully specified.
  2. [§3.2 and Table 3] The evaluation is self-referential: LangKit's injections module score, defined as the highest cosine similarity between the response embedding and known jailbreak examples, is used both to decide when to invoke the corrective model and as the jail-breaking outcome measure in Table 3. Thus the system is gated and optimized on exactly the same metric on which it is judged. Reductions in this score do not by themselves establish that outputs are safer or more secure under an independent definition of toxicity or jail-breaking. The authors should supplement the evaluation with independent toxicity classifiers, human annotation, or attack-success-rate measures.
  3. [Abstract vs. Contributions (Section 1)] The numerical claims are internally inconsistent. The abstract reports a 15% and 21% reduction for GPT-4 and an 11.1% and 19% reduction for Gemma-2b-it, while the contributions section reports 10% and 12.5% for GPT-4 and 11.1% and 6.5% for Gemma-2b-it. The body text in Section 4.3.1 matches the abstract, not the contributions. This inconsistency suggests the reported numbers are not stable enough to support the paper's conclusion, and it must be resolved before the empirical claims can be assessed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2] The quality-preservation evaluation uses MRPC sentence pairs and a DeBERTa paraphrase classifier, but the detoxification process is applied at sentence level rather than to actual LLM responses. This is a weak proxy for the response-level semantic drift that matters in the proposed framework; consider reporting quality metrics on the actual evaluated responses.
  2. [Table 3] In the 'After the integration of the BART-Corrective model' block, the PaLM2 row lacks a '+ BART' label while the text in Section 4.3.1 reports PaLM2 reductions; the table should be labeled consistently so the reader can tell which rows are corrected and which are not.
  3. [§4.3.1] The text says the experiment uses three datasets, but Table 3 appears to aggregate all responses into a single mean/SD/min/max. Reporting per-dataset results would make the evaluation more transparent and would help assess cross-dataset variability.
  4. [§4.3.2] The 'data-centric version of ProFS' is a substantial approximation of the original method, because it extracts embeddings externally rather than modifying internal representations. The comparison should be framed as approximate, and the discussion of ProFS limitations should not be stated as if they apply to the original method without qualification.
  5. [§1 and §2] The claim that 'no data-centric approach has been proposed so far' is too strong given that the paper itself later describes a data-centric variant of ProFS and related data-filtering work exists; please qualify the claim.
  6. [Throughout] Please correct typographical errors and spacing issues (e.g., 'theAnthropic', 'conterparts', 'dentence', 'Suspaces' in the ProFS description).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline reductions are in-sample threshold optima: Eq. (1) chooses τ on the same test responses whose post-correction scores are reported in Table 3, so the abstract's 15%/21% figures are maxima over the threshold sweep, not fixed-system predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.3.1; Eq. (1); Table 3]
    ""we conduct the following steps on the same dataset we used to test the performance of the BART model in Section 4.3" ... "The optimal threshold τ is determined as: τ* = arg max_τ ( Σ_{i=1}^N (s_i^LLM − s_i^BART)·I(s_i^LLM > τ) / Σ_{i=1}^N I(s_i^LLM > τ) )" ... "This experiment uses the toxicity and jail-break thresholds grounded by the ablation study results outlined in Section 4.1.""

    Eq. (1) selects τ by maximizing exactly the mean reduction in toxicity/jail-breaking scores that Section 4.3.1 and the abstract report as the method's benefit. Section 4.1.2 states that the threshold sweep is run on the same dataset used to test the BART model in Section 4.3, and Section 4.3.1 then evaluates using the thresholds chosen by that sweep. The 15%/21%, 28%/5%, and other headline numbers are therefore in-sample maxima over a 0.00–1.00 grid of thresholds applied to those very test responses, rather than estimates of what a fixed correction policy would achieve on new inputs. The optimization objective and the evaluation metric are the same quantity, so the central quantitative claim is a fitted optimum, not an independent prediction.

  2. other [Section 3.2, Section 4.1.1, Section 4.3.1]
    ""For this task, we choose the injections module from the LangKit Python Library ... The final score is equal to the highest similarity found across all examples." ... "If the LLM's response exceeds a predetermined toxicity or jail-breaking threshold, indicating potential toxicity or jail-breaking, the corrective model is invoked.""

    The LangKit injection similarity score is both the gate that decides whether BART corrects a response and the outcome metric from which the before/after reductions in Eq. (1) and Table 3 are computed. The evaluation therefore measures a change in the same function that selects which outputs to replace: the system is judged on the score it is gated and optimized over. No independent toxicity or jailbreak measure is used to validate the correction, and the threshold is explicitly chosen to maximize this same score's reduction, so the reported safety improvement is self-referential relative to the paper's own operational definition of safety.

full rationale

The BART-Corrective Model itself is not circular: BART is fine-tuned on Anthropic/hh-rlhf chosen/rejected response pairs, and the semantic-drift check on GLUE/MRPC is an external, independent validation of response quality. No load-bearing result is imported from the authors' prior self-citations. The circularity is confined to the quantitative safety claim. Equation (1) defines the optimal threshold as the argmax of the mean reduction in LangKit toxicity/jail-breaking scores, and Section 4.1.2 explicitly runs this sweep 'on the same dataset we used to test the performance of the BART model in Section 4.3'; Section 4.3.1 then evaluates the system with those fitted thresholds. The headline reductions are therefore in-sample threshold optima rather than pre-specified predictions for a fixed system on new prompts. In addition, the LangKit injection score is both the triggering criterion and the outcome measure, so the evaluation is self-referential. The internal inconsistency between the abstract (GPT-4: 15%/21%; Gemma: 11.1%/19%) and the contributions list (GPT-4: 10%/12.5%; Gemma: 11.1%/6.5%) further indicates that the numerical claims are not stable enough to support the conclusion of significant, generalizable safety improvement. Because the central claim rests on this fitted-selection loop, but the underlying text-correction step is an independent mechanism, the circularity score is 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central evaluation depends on two fitted thresholds per model and on several domain assumptions about the validity of the LangKit score and the transferability of hh-rlhf training data. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Toxicity threshold tau_tox = GPT-4: 0.58; Mistral-7B: 0.50
    Chosen per LLM by maximizing mean toxicity reduction on the test datasets (Eq. 1, Section 4.1), then used to compute reported reductions in Section 4.3.
  • Jail-breaking threshold tau_jb = GPT-4: 0.49; Mistral-7B: 0.49
    Same optimization procedure applied to jail-breaking scores; fitted on the evaluation data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LangKit injections semantic similarity score is a valid proxy for toxicity and jail-breaking.
    Section 3.2 defines detection via cosine similarity to known jailbreak examples; all evaluation metrics are these scores.
  • domain assumption Anthropic/hh-rlhf chosen/rejected pairs are suitable training signal for a general detoxifier.
    Section 3.1.1 uses this dataset to fine-tune BART; no analysis that corrections transfer across domains.
  • domain assumption Reducing the triggered score indicates improved real-world safety.
    The paper equates lower scores with safer output; no human evaluation or independent safety metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Data-Centric Approach for Safe and Secure Large Language Models against Threatening and Toxic Content." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PXRBL7W4

@misc{pith2026250416120,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Data-Centric Approach for Safe and Secure Large Language Models against Threatening and Toxic Content},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PXRBL7W4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16120}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLM) have made remarkable progress, but concerns about potential biases and harmful content persist. To address these apprehensions, we introduce a practical solution for ensuring LLM's safe and ethical use. Our novel approach focuses on a post-generation correction mechanism, the BART-Corrective Model, which adjusts generated content to ensure safety and security. Unlike relying solely on model fine-tuning or prompt engineering, our method provides a robust data-centric alternative for mitigating harmful content. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through experiments on multiple toxic datasets, which show a significant reduction in mean toxicity and jail-breaking scores after integration. Specifically, our results show a reduction of 15% and 21% in mean toxicity and jail-breaking scores with GPT-4, a substantial reduction of 28% and 5% with PaLM2, a reduction of approximately 26% and 23% with Mistral-7B, and a reduction of 11.1% and 19% with Gemma-2b-it. These results demonstrate the potential of our approach to improve the safety and security of LLM, making them more suitable for real-world applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16120 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Correction Framework 3 Proposed Corrective Model and Framework The corrective model architecture is designed to harness the capability of LLM to generate content while actively mitigating the risk of producing harmful output. The architecture of the corrective system we propose, illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of threshold optimization for GPT-4 and Mistral-7B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of toxic user queries using GPT-4 and the Corrective Model responses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of threatening user queries with GPT-4 and the Corrective Model (of GPT-4 output) responses to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hatebert: Retraining bert for abusive language detection in english

    Tommaso Caselli, Valerio Basile, Jelena Mitrovi´c, and Michael Granitzer. Hatebert: Retraining bert for abusive language detection in english. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12472, 2020

    arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Generalizable implicit hate speech detection using contrastive learning

    Youngwook Kim, Shinwoo Park, and Yo-Sub Han. Generalizable implicit hate speech detection using contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6667–6679, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Toxicity detection with generative prompt-based inference

    Yau-Shian Wang and Yingshan Chang. Toxicity detection with generative prompt-based inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12390, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Interpretable unified language checking

    Tianhua Zhang, Hongyin Luo, Yung-Sung Chuang, Wei Fang, Luc Gaitskell, Thomas Hartvigsen, Xixin Wu, Danny Fox, Helen Meng, and James Glass. Interpretable unified language checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03728, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Efficient toxic content detection by bootstrapping and distilling large language models

    Jiang Zhang, Qiong Wu, Yiming Xu, Cheng Cao, Zheng Du, and Konstantinos Psounis. Efficient toxic content detection by bootstrapping and distilling large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 21779–21787, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Autorag-hp: Automatic online hyper-parameter tuning for retrieval-augmented generation, 2024

    Jia Fu, Xiaoting Qin, Fangkai Yang, Lu Wang, Jue Zhang, Qingwei Lin, Yubo Chen, Dongmei Zhang, Saravan Rajmohan, and Qi Zhang. Autorag-hp: Automatic online hyper-parameter tuning for retrieval-augmented generation, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Enhancing rag-retrieval to improve llms robustness and resilience to hallucinations

    Chaima Njeh, Haïfa Nakouri, and Fehmi Jaafar. Enhancing rag-retrieval to improve llms robustness and resilience to hallucinations. In International Conference on Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Systems, pages 201–213. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Beyond task performance: Evaluating and reducing the flaws of large multimodal models with in-context learning

    Mustafa Shukor, Alexandre Rame, Corentin Dancette, and Matthieu Cord. Beyond task performance: Evaluating and reducing the flaws of large multimodal models with in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00647, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Principle-driven self-alignment of language models from scratch with minimal human supervision

    Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Qinhong Zhou, Hongxin Zhang, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, and Chuang Gan. Principle-driven self-alignment of language models from scratch with minimal human supervision. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Large language models can self-improve

    Jiaxin Huang, Shixiang Shane Gu, Le Hou, Yuexin Wu, Xuezhi Wang, Hongkun Yu, and Jiawei Han. Large language models can self-improve. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11610, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Defending chatgpt against jailbreak attack via self-reminders

    Yueqi Xie, Jingwei Yi, Jiawei Shao, Justin Curl, Lingjuan Lyu, Qifeng Chen, Xing Xie, and Fangzhao Wu. Defending chatgpt against jailbreak attack via self-reminders. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(12):1486–1496, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Learning and forgetting unsafe examples in large language models

    Jiachen Zhao, Zhun Deng, David Madras, James Zou, and Mengye Ren. Learning and forgetting unsafe examples in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12736, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Critic: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing

    Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Yujiu Yang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. Critic: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11738, 2023. 13 arXiv Template A PREPRINT

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    N-critics: Self-refinement of large language models with ensemble of critics

    Sajad Mousavi, Ricardo Luna Gutiérrez, Desik Rengarajan, Vineet Gundecha, Ashwin Ramesh Babu, Avisek Naug, Antonio Guillen, and Soumyendu Sarkar. N-critics: Self-refinement of large language models with ensemble of critics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18679, 2023

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Learning from mistakes makes llm better reasoner

    Shengnan An, Zexiong Ma, Zeqi Lin, Nanning Zheng, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. Learning from mistakes makes llm better reasoner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20689, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    On the intersection of self-correction and trust in language models

    Satyapriya Krishna. On the intersection of self-correction and trust in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02801, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Self-correcting llm-controlled diffusion models

    Tsung-Han Wu, Long Lian, Joseph E Gonzalez, Boyi Li, and Trevor Darrell. Self-correcting llm-controlled diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16090, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Automatically correcting large language models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies

    Liangming Pan, Michael Saxon, Wenda Xu, Deepak Nathani, Xinyi Wang, and William Yang Wang. Automatically correcting large language models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03188, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Self-[in] correct: Llms struggle with refining self-generated responses

    Dongwei Jiang, Jingyu Zhang, Orion Weller, Nathaniel Weir, Benjamin Van Durme, and Daniel Khashabi. Self-[in] correct: Llms struggle with refining self-generated responses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04298, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet

    Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01798, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Confidence matters: Revisiting intrinsic self-correction capabilities of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12563, 2024

    Loka Li, Guangyi Chen, Yusheng Su, Zhenhao Chen, Yixuan Zhang, Eric Xing, and Kun Zhang. Confidence matters: Revisiting intrinsic self-correction capabilities of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12563, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Democratizing llms: An exploration of cost-performance trade-offs in self-refined open-source models

    Sumuk Shashidhar, Abhinav Chinta, Vaibhav Sahai, Zhenhailong Wang, and Heng Ji. Democratizing llms: An exploration of cost-performance trade-offs in self-refined open-source models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07611, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Model editing as a robust and denoised variant of dpo: A case study on toxicity

    Rheeya Uppaal, Apratim Dey, Yiting He, Yiqiao Zhong, and Junjie Hu. Model editing as a robust and denoised variant of dpo: A case study on toxicity. In Neurips Safe Generative AI Workshop 2024, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    OpenAI, Josh Achiam, and Steven Adler et al. Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Dai, and Orhan Firat et al

    Rohan Anil, Andrew M. Dai, and Orhan Firat et al. Palm 2 technical report, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Mistral 7b

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology

    Gemma Team, Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivière, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, et al. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    I. T. Jolliffe. Principal Component Analysis. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002. 14

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.