Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Who Bridges Safety? Identifying and Targeting Cross-Lingual Shared Safety Pathways

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 sparse set of cross-language safety pathways shared between high-resource and low-resource languages acts as an internal bridge, and that updating only the parameters on these pathways—under 1% of the…

desk verdict Credible pathway-level safety result; the transfer mechanism is plausible but needs a direct gradient-support test. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09095 v1 pith:C7OEDDXG submitted 2026-08-10 cs.AI

Shuyi Miao , Wangjie Qiu , Pengyang Shao , Canran Xiao , Fei Shen , Zhiming Zheng , Tat-Seng Chua This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords cross-lingualsafetypathwaysmechanisticinterpretabilityparameter-efficientfine-tuningjailbreakmitigationmultilinguallargelanguagemodelsshared
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

Large language models refuse harmful queries reliably in high-resource languages like English, but often comply when the same request is posed in a lower-resource language. This paper argues that the gap is not a comprehension failure: it is a routing failure. The authors locate the cross-layer “safety pathways” that carry refusal signals, show that high-resource and low-resource languages share a sparse subset of these pathways, and then update only the parameters lying on the shared pathways. With under 1% of parameters changed, low-resource safety improves sharply, general reasoning and knowledge scores stay flat, and the improvement transfers even to languages unseen during fine-tuning. If the account is right, multilingual safety can be achieved by strengthening a small internal bridge rather than by re-aligning the whole model on every language.

What carries the argument

The central object is the safety pathway, defined in two complementary ways. Co-activation pathways ($P^A_\lambda$) connect neurons in adjacent FFN layers whose joint activation is frequent, phi-correlated, permutation-significant, and specific to unsafe inputs. Activation-propagation pathways ($P^B_\lambda$) connect a source safety neuron to a next-layer safety neuron when replacing the source's activation by its benign mean induces a standardized activation change larger than random-intervention baselines. The union $P_\lambda = P^A_\lambda \cup P^B_\lambda$ is the per-language safety pathway, and the shared bridge is the intersection $P^\star_\lambda = P_\lambda \cap P_{\text{HR}}$. These pathways do the work of the argument: they give a concrete, sparse set of parameters to mask for causal verification, to ablate for comparison against random pathways, and to update in Eq. (8), so the mechanistic claim and the intervention target are the same object.

What would settle it

Compute the norm of the NHR safety-loss gradient on parameters outside the identified NHR pathway; if on held-out harmful queries $\|\nabla_{\theta \setminus P_{\rm NHR}} L_{\rm NHR}\|$ is comparable to the norm on $P_{\rm NHR}$, the support assumption behind Eq. (10) fails and the shared-pathway mechanism is not the only bridge. A weaker falsifier: find any NHR language whose safety pathway has near-zero overlap with the HR pathway but still shows strong zero-shot transfer after HR-pathway fine-tuning, which would contradict the claim that overlap is the bridge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that safety refusal in LLMs is carried by identifiable cross-layer pathways—connections between FFN neurons across adjacent layers that co-activate and propagate activation changes when the model processes harmful inputs. Within each language these pathways form a per-language set $P_\lambda$; the cross-lingual shared pathways $P^\star_\lambda = P_\lambda \cap P_{\text{HR}}$ form a sparse “internal bridge” through which refusal capability transfers from the high-resource anchor language to non-high-resource languages. Masking these shared pathways degrades safety far more than masking a size-matched random pathway. Consequently, the paper proposes updating only parameters along $P_{\text{HR}}$ (Eq. 8 with mask $m$) using a semantically aligned HR–NHR safety corpus; across Gemma-2-9B-it, Llama-3.1-8B-it, and Qwen3-8B this lowers attack success rates to the lowest levels in the comparison while updating 0.46–0.71% of parameters, and it zero-shot transfers to held-out languages. The paper's Appendix A formalizes the mechanism: under a first-order expansion, the NHR loss decreases when HR and NHR safety gradients agree on the shared pathway.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each language's safety-relevant computation lives on the specific pathway the method identifies for that language, so gradients outside those pathways are negligible; if safety signals spread across other channels, the first-order argument that only shared-pathway parameters matter for non-high-resource safety collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cross-lingual safety alignment reduces to finding and reinforcing $P^\star_\lambda$: a single HR-anchored update, applied to shared pathways, improves refusal across multiple NHR languages at once.
  • Safety capability can be transferred zero-shot to languages never seen during fine-tuning (leave-one-out experiments), implying that the shared pathway encodes language-general refusal structure rather than per-language memorized refusals.
  • Because only 0.46–0.71% of parameters are updated, safety alignment can be applied cheaply and without catastrophic forgetting: MGSM/MMMLU scores stay flat or improve relative to full fine-tuning and LoRA.
  • Combining co-activation and activation-propagation pathway types matters more than updating all safety neurons, which implies that the cross-layer connection structure, not just the identity of important neurons, is functionally load-bearing.
  • Random-pathway or HR-only updates fail to transfer, so the locus of optimization—not the amount of data or parameter count—determines cross-lingual safety.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the shared-pathway bridge might mediate other cross-lingual transfers, such as reasoning or factual knowledge; the paper itself notes that extending the strategy beyond safety remains open.
  • A testable prediction follows: languages whose safety pathways overlap the HR pathway more should show larger zero-shot transfer gains, so overlap size could serve as a cheap predictor of which languages need direct supervision.
  • The method's success suggests a broader principle: targeted intervention on computationally sparse pathways may beat full-parameter alignment for any capability that is localized, not just safety.
  • Because the pathway mask is derived from one HR anchor language and a set of NHR languages, the bridge location likely depends on the choice of anchor; using a different HR anchor may yield a different shared set, which is an empirical question the paper does not resolve.
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 to identify cross-layer 'safety pathways' in multilingual LLMs by first localizing safety neurons via contrastive gradient–activation attribution and then connecting them through co-activation and activation-propagation edges. It defines a shared safety pathway P*_lambda = P_lambda ∩ P_HR for each non-high-resource language, validates its causal relevance by masking interventions, and uses it to design a pathways-targeted fine-tuning method that updates only a small fraction of parameters (Eq. 8). Experiments on Gemma-2-9B-it, Llama-3.1-8B-it, and Qwen3-8B, evaluated on AdvBench-x and MultiJail, report state-of-the-art NHR safety ASR with preserved general ability, supported by ablations including random-pathway tuning, importance-matched controls, and leave-one-language-out transfer.

Significance. If the central mechanistic claim holds, the paper offers a practical and interpretable route to improving multilingual safety with under 1% parameter updates, and it moves beyond isolated-neuron analyses to a genuinely cross-layer account. The empirical core is well controlled: random-pathway masking and random-pathway tuning, importance-matched control neurons, and leave-one-language-out transfer are all appropriate comparisons, and the leave-one-out result is a strong falsifiable prediction. The theoretical explanation, however, rests on an untested gradient-support assumption in Appendix A, and the headline SOTA comparisons are reported without variance. The mechanism claim and the empirical utility claim should therefore be separated in the revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (10)] The assumption that each language's safety gradient is primarily supported on its own pathway, ∂_j L_NHR ≈ 0 for j ∉ P_NHR, is load-bearing: it is what reduces Eq. (13) to Eq. (14) and produces the P*-only conclusion in Eq. (16). The masking experiments in Tables 1–2 demonstrate that P_NHR and P* are causally relevant to refusal behavior, but causal importance does not imply negligible gradient support on the complement. Without Eq. (10), updating P_HR \ P* could reduce L_NHR directly, so the claim that transfer necessarily routes through P* is not established. I recommend a direct test: compare updating (or masking) P* versus P_HR \ P* with matched parameter counts, and/or measure the gradient norm of L_NHR on the complement of P_NHR. If HR-exclusive pathway updates also reduce NHR loss, the 'bridge' claim should be weakened to 'shared pathway is predictive common circuitry'.
  2. [Table 3] All ASR entries are single runs without variance or significance tests, yet several headline margins over the strongest baseline are small: on Llama-3.1-8B-it the advantages are 0.81% on AdvBench-x and 0.69% on MultiJail, and on Gemma-2-9B-it they are 0.81% and 1.01%. Since ASR from different random seeds and evaluation subsets can easily vary by more than one percentage point, the 'state-of-the-art' claim is not statistically supported. Report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds for the main comparisons in Tables 3 and 5, or provide bootstrap confidence intervals.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (8)] The construction of the binary parameter mask m from the identified pathway sets is underspecified. A co-activation edge e_{ℓ,i→j} connects two FFN channels in adjacent layers; it is unclear whether the mask covers the up-projection/down-projection weights of neuron i, neuron j, or both, and how the same neuron participating in many edges is handled. This mapping is the core of the proposed method and must be precise for reproducibility; please give the exact rule that turns Pλ into the parameter index set used in Eq. (8).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 6] The axis labels 'E/glyph1197' and 'B/glyph1197' are rendering artifacts; please replace them with clear text such as 'English' and 'Bengali'.
  2. [Section 3.3 / Appendix A] The shared-pathway notation is introduced as P⋆_λ = P_λ ∩ P_HR in Section 3.3 but later used as P⋆ = P_HR ∩ P_NHR in Appendix A; unify the subscript convention and define P⋆_λ consistently.
  3. [Table 4] The '#N' value for Ours on Gemma-2-9B-it (3,971) is not the sum of ActProp Pathways (108) and CoAct Pathways (3,923); clarify whether the union has overlaps and how the final pathway count is computed.
  4. [Appendix B] The sensitivity analysis varies s_min, z_min, r_min, and ρ, but not the per-layer top-k% or the significance level α; please justify why the fixed values for those two hyperparameters are sufficient.
  5. [Appendix G] The human evaluation is reported only as 'average agreement exceeded 86%'; provide per-language agreement rates, sample sizes, and annotator counts to substantiate the judge reliability claim.
  6. [Table 6] The leave-one-language-out experiment is run on a single backbone (Gemma-2-9B-it); including at least one additional backbone would make the zero-shot transfer claim considerably more robust.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The theoretical derivation of the shared-pathway bridge reduces to the unverified gradient-support assumption of Eq. (10), while the empirical alignment results remain independently supported.

  1. self definitional [Appendix A.1–A.2, Eqs. (10)–(14)]
    "We assume that each language’s safety gradient is primarily supported on its own pathway, i.e., ∂jLλ ≈0 for j /∈ Pλ. (10) ... By the safety pathway-support assumption, the NHR safety gradient is negligible outside P NHR ... The dominant contribution comes from the shared safety pathway P⋆ =P HR ∩ PNHR"

    Equation (14) is not derived from independent evidence; it is the formal conjunction of the definition P* = P_HR ∩ P_NHR, the mask m selecting P_HR, and the assumed Eq. (10). Given Eq. (10), every term in Eq. (13) with j outside P_NHR vanishes, so the surviving sum is over P* by construction. The paper presents this as a theoretical explanation of why the shared pathway is the 'internal bridge' for cross-lingual safety transfer, but the bridge conclusion is already contained in the assumption that each language's safety gradient is supported only on its own pathway. The cited support for Eq.

full rationale

The paper's practical contribution is substantially independent: the pathways-targeted alignment is benchmarked against size-matched random-pathway tuning, importance-matched controls, full fine-tuning, LoRA, and leave-one-language-out transfer, all of which support the empirical claim that updating a small pathway-defined parameter set improves NHR safety. The masking experiments likewise provide genuine causal evidence that the identified pathways and their shared intersection matter for refusal. However, the paper's central mechanistic interpretation—that the shared intersection P* is the internal bridge through which HR safety is transferred to NHR languages—rests on the first-order analysis in Appendix A, and that analysis derives its main conclusion directly from Eq. (10), an assumption that each language's safety gradient has negligible support outside its own identified pathway. This assumption is close to the conclusion it is used to explain, making the bridge claim partly self-definitional. The paper contains self-citations to overlapping-author work (Zhang et al. 2026, 'Who Transfers Safety?') for the neuron-attribution methodology and as a baseline, but these are not load-bearing: the method is validated by its own ablations and external benchmarks. The score of 6 reflects partial circularity: the mechanistic 'bridge' derivation reduces by construction to an assumed gradient-support condition, while the empirical alignment results stand on independent evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on seven hand-set pathway-identification thresholds, a gradient-support assumption that is close to the conclusion, and the assumption that FFN-channel attribution captures safety. No new physical entities are introduced; 'safety pathways' and the 'shared bridge' are internal constructs validated only within this paper.

free parameters (7)
  • Per-layer top-k% for safety neuron selection = 3%
    Sets the size of the top-k sets in Eq. (2); chosen by hand and directly controls the neuron set S_lambda.
  • Joint co-activation rate threshold s_min = 0.03
    Minimum unsafe joint co-activation rate p^-_ellij required to keep an edge in Eq. (5).
  • Phi coefficient threshold phi_min = 0.02
    Minimum association strength phi^-_ellij required to keep an edge in Eq. (5).
  • Safety-specificity difference rho = 1.5
    Minimum Delta phi_ellij = phi^- minus phi^+ for an edge; sensitivity analysis shows this threshold notably changes pathway size.
  • Permutation-test significance alpha = 0.05
    P-value cutoff q_ellij < alpha for edge significance in Eq. (5).
  • Standardized intervention effect z_min = 2.0
    Minimum z-score of activation change relative to random interventions in Eq. (7).
  • Relative activation change r_min = 0.05
    Minimum normalized intervention effect Delta_ell,i->j / M_ell+1,j required in Eq. (7).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each language's safety gradient is primarily supported on its own safety pathway: partial_j L_lambda is approximately 0 for parameters j outside P_lambda.
    Invoked in Appendix A.1 as Eq. (10) to derive that only shared-pathway parameters matter for NHR loss transfer; supported only by the authors' masking observations, not independently verified.
  • domain assumption FFN intermediate activation channels are atomic units whose attributions capture safety-relevant computation.
    Standard mechanistic practice (Geva et al., 2021) used in Section 3.1; safety encoded in attention or embeddings would be missed.
  • domain assumption The contrast between the unsafe and benign probe datasets isolates safety signals from general language features.
    Assumed in Section 3.1 when defining S_lambda via contrastive subtraction in Eq. (2); style or topic differences could confound the contrast.
  • domain assumption The GPT-4o automated judge reliably labels response safety across low-resource languages.
    All ASR tables depend on this judge; Appendix G reports human and Llama-Guard agreement, but it remains a model-based approximation.
invented entities (2)
  • Safety pathway P_lambda (cross-layer co-activation and activation-propagation edges between safety neurons)
    purpose: Represents the functional route of safety signal propagation and serves as the target for masking and fine-tuning.
    The construct is precisely operationalized and validated within the paper via interventions on three models, but no independent external verification exists yet.
  • Shared safety pathway P*_lambda = P_lambda ∩ P_HR
    purpose: Claimed internal bridge that transfers refusal capability from high-resource to non-high-resource languages.
    Supported by masking and leave-one-out experiments in this paper, but the transfer interpretation itself has not been confirmed outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Who Bridges Safety? Identifying and Targeting Cross-Lingual Shared Safety Pathways." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C7OEDDXG

@misc{pith2026260809095,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Who Bridges Safety? Identifying and Targeting Cross-Lingual Shared Safety Pathways},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C7OEDDXG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09095}
}
read the original abstract

Uncovering the internal mechanisms underlying the safety capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is crucial for developing trustworthy artificial intelligence. Currently, mechanistic interpretability studies on multilingual safety are largely confined to local components, such as isolated neurons. However, this static and fragmented perspective overlooks the synergy among components and fails to elucidate how safety signals dynamically propagate within the model to drive safety decisions ultimately. In this work, we move beyond isolated neurons to identify and target the cross-layer functional pathways formed during safety signal propagation, thereby uncovering the mechanisms driving the cross-lingual safety gap. Specifically, we first identify monolingual safety pathways and validate their impact on refusing harmful requests. Subsequent cross-lingual analyses reveal a sparse subset of cross-lingual shared safety pathways, confirming that this intersection acts as the internal bridge transferring safety capabilities from high-resource (HR) languages to non-high-resource (NHR) languages. Building on these mechanistic findings, we propose a pathways-targeted alignment method based on the cross-lingual shared safety pathways. Experimental results show that updating only a small fraction of pathway parameters significantly improves safety in NHR languages while largely preserving the model's general capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09095 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The multilingual safety imbalance and latent routing failure. (Left) Despite comprehending NHR lan￾guages, LLMs fail to reject NHR harmful queries. (Right) HR intents reliably trigger safety pathways, whereas NHR intents bypass them, failing to refuse harmful queries. imbalance weakens the overall safety reliability of LLMs in real-world deployment (Wang et al. 2025a, 2026a; Miao et al. 2025, 2026), further highligh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed cross-lingual safety alignment framework. (1) Pathways Identification: Construction of safety pathways via co-activation and activation-propagation. (2) Shared Pathways: Extraction of the intersection between HR and NHR pathways to form a cross-lingual safety core. (3) Pathways-Targeted Cross-Lingual Alignment: Exclusive fine-tuning of the safety pathways to improve cross-lingual refusal con… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impact of safety pathways on cross-lingual safety. Default ASR (left) and post-masking ASR increase (right). Languages with more detected pathways (bars) con￾sistently show stronger baseline safety and suffer greater degradation (∆ASR) when masked. Model Default Random Masking (∆) Shared Masking (∆) AdvBench-x (Yong et al. 2023) Llama-3.1-8B-it 31.41 31.22 (−0.19) 52.73 (+21.32) Qwen3-8B 32.54 32.33 (−0.21) 91.67 (+… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of shared pathways on NHR safety. De￾fault ASR (left) and post-masking ∆ASR (right). NHR lan￾guages with more HR-shared pathways (bars) exhibit stronger baseline safety and suffer greater degradation upon masking. which serves as an internal bridge for transferr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison on general capability benchmarks. Higher scores indicate better capability reten￾tion. The Default represents the original model performance. outperforming the strongest baseline by 0.81% and 1.01%, respectively. Similarly, on Llama-3.1-8B-it, it…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Safety pathways expansion. (a) Pathway recruit￾ment surges post-alignment, with NHR languages exhibiting the largest growth to access shared safety pathways. (b) After fine-tuning, shared pathway activations become denser and more consistent across languages. largely p…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Safety direction alignment on shared pathways across three backbones. For each NHR language, we report the cosine alignment cos(dHR, dNHR) between HR and NHR safety directions on the shared safety pathways. Across all three backbones, the shared safety pathway exhibits…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity analysis of key pathway-identification hyperparameters for Qwen3-8B, evaluated on AdvBench-x. We adjusted different hyperparameters, observed the changes in the identified set of safety pathways, and evaluated the changes in the model’s safety capabilities …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education

    Clancey, William J. Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education. Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83)

  2. [2]

    Classification Problem Solving

    Clancey, William J. Classification Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  3. [3]

    , title =

    Robinson, Arthur L. , title =. 1980 , doi =. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/208/4447/1019.full.pdf , journal =

    1980

  4. [4]

    New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry

    Robinson, Arthur L. New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry. Science

  5. [5]

    Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =

    Diane Warner Hasling and William J. Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =. Strategic explanations for a diagnostic consultation system , journal =. 1984 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80003-6 , url =

    doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(84)80003-6 1984

  6. [6]

    and Rennels, Glenn R

    Hasling, Diane Warner and Clancey, William J. and Rennels, Glenn R. and Test, Thomas. Strategic Explanations in Consultation---Duplicate. The International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

  7. [7]

    Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

    Rice, James. Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

  8. [8]

    Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

    Clancey, William J. Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    The Engineering of Qualitative Models

    Clancey, William J. The Engineering of Qualitative Models

  2. [10]

    2017 , eprint=

    Attention Is All You Need , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  3. [11]

    Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

    NASA. Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

  4. [12]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Multilingual jailbreak challenges in large language models , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  5. [14]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages=

    The language barrier: Dissecting safety challenges of llms in multilingual contexts , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages=

    2024

  6. [16]

    arXiv e-prints , pages=

    Finding safety neurons in large language models , author=. arXiv e-prints , pages=

  7. [17]

    Distill , volume=

    Zoom in: An introduction to circuits , author=. Distill , volume=

  8. [18]

    Transformer Circuits Thread , volume=

    A mathematical framework for transformer circuits , author=. Transformer Circuits Thread , volume=

  9. [19]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Do llamas work in english? on the latent language of multilingual transformers , author=. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  10. [20]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    How do large language models handle multilingualism? , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  11. [21]

    , author=

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. , author=. Iclr , volume=

  12. [22]

    Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories , author=. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2021

  13. [23]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Transformer layers as painters , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  14. [24]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  15. [25]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=

    A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences , author=. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  16. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00409 , year=

    Provably robust dpo: Aligning language models with noisy feedback , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00409 , year=

    arXiv

  17. [27]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024 , pages=

    Cognitive overload: Jailbreaking large language models with overloaded logical thinking , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024 , pages=

    2024

  18. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306 , year=

    Kto: Model alignment as prospect theoretic optimization , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01306 , year=

    arXiv

  19. [29]

    Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    Orpo: Monolithic preference optimization without reference model , author=. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2024

  20. [30]

    and others , title=

    Park, R. and others , title=. ACL Findings , year=

  21. [31]

    and others , title=

    Meng, Y. and others , title=. NeurIPS , year=

  22. [32]

    and others , title=

    Zhao, Y. and others , title=. arXiv preprint , year=

  23. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 , year=

    Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 , year=

    arXiv

  24. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year=

    Qwen3 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year=

    arXiv

  25. [36]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to! , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  26. [37]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages=

    Salad-bench: A hierarchical and comprehensive safety benchmark for large language models , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages=

    2024

  27. [38]

    0: A diverse ai safety dataset and risks taxonomy for alignment of llm guardrails , author=

    Aegis2. 0: A diverse ai safety dataset and risks taxonomy for alignment of llm guardrails , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    2025

  28. [39]

    2023 , publisher=

    Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model , author=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  29. [40]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Jailbreakbench: An open robustness benchmark for jailbreaking large language models , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  30. [41]

    2025 IEEE 41st International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , pages=

    Know your account: double graph inference-based account de-anonymization on ethereum , author=. 2025 IEEE 41st International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , pages=. 2025 , organization=

    2025

  31. [42]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , year=

    Tracing Your Account: A Gradient-Aware Dynamic Window Graph Framework for Ethereum under Privacy-Preserving Services , author=. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , year=

  32. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21900 , year=

    TraceRouter: Robust Safety for Large Foundation Models via Path-Level Intervention , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21900 , year=

  33. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16660 , year=

    Align once, benefit multilingually: Enforcing multilingual consistency for LLM safety alignment , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16660 , year=

  34. [45]

    ACM Transactions on Information Systems , volume=

    Llm4dsr: Leveraging large language model for denoising sequential recommendation , author=. ACM Transactions on Information Systems , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  35. [46]

    Trustworthy Recommendation in the Era of Large Language Models: Opportunities and Challenges , author=

  36. [47]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Language-specific neurons: The key to multilingual capabilities in large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  37. [48]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    The emergence of abstract thought in large language models beyond any language , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  38. [49]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Locating and editing factual associations in gpt , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  39. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07229 , year=

    Mass-editing memory in a transformer , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07229 , year=

    arXiv

  40. [51]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    How johnny can persuade llms to jailbreak them: Rethinking persuasion to challenge ai safety by humanizing llms , author=. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  41. [52]

    Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    The multilingual alignment prism: Aligning global and local preferences to reduce harm , author=. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2024

  42. [53]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025 , pages=

    Multilingual blending: Large language model safety alignment evaluation with language mixture , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025 , pages=

    2025

  43. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04377 , year=

    Polyguard: A multilingual safety moderation tool for 17 languages , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04377 , year=

    arXiv

  44. [55]

    Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    Mrguard: A multilingual reasoning guardrail for universal llm safety , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2025

  45. [56]

    Cultureguard: Towards culturally-aware dataset and guard model for multilingual safety applications , author=. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Comput...

  46. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.12733 , year=

    Linguasafe: A comprehensive multilingual safety benchmark for large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.12733 , year=

    arXiv

  47. [58]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03057 , year=

    Language models are multilingual chain-of-thought reasoners , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03057 , year=

    arXiv

  48. [59]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300 , year=

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300 , year=

    2009 arXiv

  49. [60]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08177 , year=

    Efficient and effective text encoding for chinese llama and alpaca , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08177 , year=

    arXiv

  50. [61]

    Proceedings of the First Workshop in South East Asian Language Processing , pages=

    InstructAlign: High-and-low resource language alignment via continual crosslingual instruction tuning , author=. Proceedings of the First Workshop in South East Asian Language Processing , pages=

  51. [62]

    Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Xstest: A test suite for identifying exaggerated safety behaviours in large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    2024

  52. [63]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Navigating the overkill in large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  53. [64]

    Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Enhancing multilingual capabilities of large language models through self-distillation from resource-rich languages , author=. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  54. [65]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04735 , year=

    From Data to Behavior: Predicting Unintended Model Behaviors Before Training , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04735 , year=

  55. [66]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Beyond prompt engineering: Robust behavior control in llms via steering target atoms , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  56. [67]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Imagpose: A unified conditional framework for pose-guided person generation , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  57. [68]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Imagdressing-v1: Customizable virtual dressing , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  58. [69]

    Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages=

    Popularity-aware alignment and contrast for mitigating popularity bias , author=. Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages=

  59. [70]

    WWW , year=

    Dynamic Spectral Denoising with Global-Context Attention for Multi-Behavior Recommendation , author=. WWW , year=

  60. [71]

    Röttger, P.; Kirk, H.; Vidgen, B.; Attanasio, G.; Bianchi, F.; and Hovy, D. 2024. XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computation...

    2024

  61. [72]

    Grattafiori, A.; Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; Pandey, A.; Kadian, A.; Al-Dahle, A.; Letman, A.; Mathur, A.; Schelten, A.; Vaughan, A.; et al. 2024. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  62. [73]

    Yong, Z.-X.; Menghini, C.; and Bach, S. H. 2023. Low-Resource Languages Jailbreak GPT-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02446

    2023 arXiv

  63. [74]

    J.; and Bing, L

    Deng, Y.; Zhang, W.; Pan, S. J.; and Bing, L. 2024. Multilingual Jailbreak Challenges in Large Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  64. [75]

    Chen, J.; Wang, X.; Yao, Z.; Bai, Y.; Hou, L.; and Li, J. 2024. Finding Safety Neurons in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406

    2024

  65. [76]

    Zhang, X.; Xie, C.; Zhu, L.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, W.; Cheng, Z.; Wang, C.; Shen, F.; and Chua, T.-S. 2026. Who Transfers Safety? Identifying and Targeting Cross-Lingual Shared Safety Neurons. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01283

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.