REVIEW 2 cited by
Toxicity Detection for Free
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
read the original abstract
Current LLMs are generally aligned to follow safety requirements and tend to refuse toxic prompts. However, LLMs can fail to refuse toxic prompts or be overcautious and refuse benign examples. In addition, state-of-the-art toxicity detectors have low TPRs at low FPR, incurring high costs in real-world applications where toxic examples are rare. In this paper, we introduce Moderation Using LLM Introspection (MULI), which detects toxic prompts using the information extracted directly from LLMs themselves. We found we can distinguish between benign and toxic prompts from the distribution of the first response token's logits. Using this idea, we build a robust detector of toxic prompts using a sparse logistic regression model on the first response token logits. Our scheme outperforms SOTA detectors under multiple metrics.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Paladin: Defending LLM-enabled Phishing Emails with a New Trigger-Tag Paradigm
A trigger-tag watermark embedded by fine-tuning lets modified LLMs mark their own phishing outputs for cheap detection.
-
Exploring Multimodal Challenges in Toxic Chinese Detection: Taxonomy, Benchmark, and Findings
A new taxonomy and dataset of 8 types of perturbed toxic Chinese show nine top LLMs often miss these obfuscated insults, and small-sample ICL or fine-tuning causes overcorrection.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.