REVIEW 3 cited by
Challenges in Guardrailing Large Language Models for Science
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
The rapid development in large language models (LLMs) has transformed the landscape of natural language processing and understanding (NLP/NLU), offering significant benefits across various domains. However, when applied to scientific research, these powerful models exhibit critical failure modes related to scientific integrity and trustworthiness. Existing general-purpose LLM guardrails are insufficient to address these unique challenges in the scientific domain. We provide comprehensive guidelines for deploying LLM guardrails in the scientific domain. We identify specific challenges -- including time sensitivity, knowledge contextualization, conflict resolution, and intellectual property concerns -- and propose a guideline framework for the guardrails that can align with scientific needs. These guardrail dimensions include trustworthiness, ethics & bias, safety, and legal aspects. We also outline in detail the implementation strategies that employ white-box, black-box, and gray-box methodologies that can be enforced within scientific contexts.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Learning When to Act or Refuse: Guarding Agentic Reasoning Models for Safe Multi-Step Tool Use
A single post-training recipe — explicit safety reasoning plus refusal as a first-class action, optimized by pairwise preference RL — reduces harmful tool-use and injection success on open LLM agents, with model-depen...
-
SI-FACT: Mitigating Knowledge Conflict via Self-Improving Faithfulness-Aware Contrastive Tuning
Self-generated contrastive tuning (SI-FACT) raises contextual answer rates on ECARE_KRE from 69.8% (best baseline) to 76.0%, and on COSE_KRE from 52.9% to 54.2%.
-
LLM Harms: A Taxonomy and Discussion
This paper proposes a taxonomy of LLM harms in five categories and suggests mitigation strategies plus a dynamic auditing system for responsible development.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.