Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

CARE claims that decoding-time safety alignment can be targeted: a guard-triggered rollback plus a self-generated critique lowers the harmful response rate to 4.53% while keeping response quality close to baseline and user-visible latency l

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

CARE uses guard-model detection, token-buffer rollback, and self-reflective prompting to reduce harmful responses while preserving response quality.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid decoding-time safety engineering with a real evaluation caveat: the guard model is both the controller and the safety metric, so the headline HRR numbers are only as good as that one classifier. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06982 v1 pith:HKKPGHWL submitted 2025-09-01 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

CARE: Decoding Time Safety Alignment via Rollback and Introspection Intervention

Xiaomeng Hu , Fei Huang , Chenhan Yuan , Junyang Lin , Tsung-Yi Ho This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL
keywords decoding-time safety alignmentrollback mechanismtoken bufferguard modelintrospection interventionself-critiquesafety-quality trade-offcontrastive decoding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that decoding-time safety interventions fail not because they are weak, but because they are applied indiscriminately: penalizing every token on every query destroys benign responses. CARE reframes the problem as a detect-rollback-intervene loop: a binary guard model watches the streaming output, a token buffer hides the latest tokens from the user, and when unsafe content is spotted, the buffer is rolled back and the model is steered onto a safe path. The central proposed intervention, Introspection, prompts the model to generate a short self-critique after its own unsafe attempt and feeds that reflection back into the context. On the BeaverTails benchmark, the authors report that Introspection achieves a harmful response rate of 4.53 with a response quality score of 55.95 and average wait tokens of 57.06, beating CARE-enhanced Contrastive Decoding and ARGS on the overall safety-quality-latency balance. The paper also finds that increasing the buffer size is a more effective way to spend latency budget than increasing retries.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the severe safety-quality trade-off of decoding-time interventions is caused by applying them uniformly, and that a targeted detect-rollback-intervene framework resolves most of that tension. Concretely, the authors show that when Contrastive Decoding or ARGS is triggered only after a guard model detects unsafe content, and only on a bounded token buffer, safety improves (HRR 4.57 for Contrastive at full strength) while response quality stays far above the vanilla version's collapse to 0.01. Their own Introspection method, which fills the rolled-back buffer with a model-generated self-critical reflection, improves the balance further: HRR 4.53, quality 55.95

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a detect-rollback-intervene control loop with three parts: a token buffer that holds the last b generated tokens away from the user; a guard model G(q, r(t)) that returns a binary safe/unsafe judgment on the full text so far; and a rollback step that clears the buffer and reverts the model's hidden state by b tokens when the guard fires. This transforms any always-on intervention I into a conditional, targeted operation that regenerates only the unsafe span, conditioned on the already-confirmed safe prefix. Introspection is the paper's intervention for that loop: after rollback, the model is prompted with a reflective instruction and a fixed starting phrase ('..

Load-bearing premise

The entire mechanism and its headline safety numbers rest on one binary classifier's judgment: if that classifier misses real harm or flags harmless text as harmful, the reported safety gain is an artifact of optimizing against that model.

What would settle it

Run the same CARE pipeline on a held-out set of adversarial and benign prompts, then label the outputs with independent human annotators or a different safety classifier instead of the paper's guard model. If human-flagged or other-classifier-flagged harm does not drop from roughly 12% to near 4.5%, or if fluent benign answers are frequently rewritten as refusals, the central safety-quality claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Existing decoding-time methods such as Contrastive Decoding and ARGS become substantially more attractive when applied only to risky spans rather than every token of every query.
  • The Introspection method gives a better overall safety-quality-latency balance than both strong baselines, suggesting that context-level self-correction can outperform logit-level penalties.
  • Buffer scaling, not retry scaling, is the more effective way to convert latency budget into safety, offering a predictable deployment knob.
  • The single-intervention variant reduces average wait tokens by roughly 30-40%, a practical option for latency-constrained deployment, though it shifts the safety-quality balance at high intervention strength.
  • Because the guard model is modular, stronger or cheaper classifiers can be dropped into the framework without redesigning the loop.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported safety numbers are inherently bounded by the chosen binary guard's accuracy and adversarial robustness; if that classifier misses certain harms or over-flags benign text, the headline HRR is an artifact of that monitor. A natural next test is to swap in a different guard or human labels and check whether the safety gains transfer.
  • The detect-rollback-intervene loop is not specific to harmfulness: it could be repurposed for other streaming constraints such as factual consistency, privacy leakage, or style adherence by replacing the guard signal.
  • The buffer-scaling result suggests an online controller could adjust buffer size per query, spending more latency budget only on high-risk requests, rather than using a single fixed configuration.
  • The ablation showing that both the reflective instruction and the apologetic starting phrase are needed hints that the rhetorical framing of the model's self-correction matters; testing other reflective phrasings and longer critique formats is a cheap, promising extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents CARE, a decoding-time safety framework with three components: a guard model for real-time monitoring, a token buffer enabling rollback to a safe prefix, and an "Introspection" intervention that prompts the model to generate a self-critique after a safety violation. Experiments on BeaverTails with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct compare vanilla Contrastive Decoding and ARGS against their CARE-enhanced versions and against Introspection. The main reported results are that CARE substantially improves the safety-quality trade-off, and that Introspection achieves the best balance with HRR 4.53, response quality 55.95, and AWT 57.06. The paper also analyzes buffer/retry scaling and a single-intervention variant, and includes ablations of the introspection prompt and sampling temperature.

Significance. If validated, CARE is a practical modular framework: it converts always-on interventions into targeted on-demand corrections and introduces an interpretable self-critique mechanism that preserves benign content. The paper's strengths are its detailed ablations (prompt components, temperature, buffer vs retry scaling), its use of a realistic safety benchmark, and its candid discussion of the safety-utility-latency trilemma. However, the headline safety metric is computed with the same guard model that serves as the controller and reward model, so the quantitative claims are circular until an independent safety judge is used. This is the key risk to the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (2), §C.3, §D.1] HRR is defined as the fraction of final responses flagged by cais/HarmBench-Llama-2-13b-cls (§D.1), and the same classifier is the real-time controller in Eq. (2) and the reward model in ARGS (§C.3). Thus all methods—rollback, contrastive decoding, ARGS, and introspection—are selected and tuned to reduce the flag rate of this one fixed classifier. The reported differences (e.g., HRR 4.53 vs 4.57) measure agreement with that classifier, not general safety. The Appendix A caveat that the framework is 'only as strong as its Guard Model' does not address the fact that the evaluation metric is not independent of the intervention signal. Please report HRR under at least one independent safety judge (e.g., LlamaGuard, GPT-4o-based moderation, or human annotation), and show agreement/calibration of the guard on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct outputs on BeaverTails.
  2. [§4.2, Figure 4] The central claim that Introspection achieves a 'superior balance' rests on small numerical gaps: HRR 4.53 vs 4.57 and AWT 57.06 vs 57.71. No confidence intervals, significance tests, or multiple seeds are reported anywhere in Section 4. With a finite evaluation set, these margins are plausibly within sampling noise, and the absence of uncertainty estimates also affects Table 1 (e.g., 3.54 vs 4.57) and Figure 5. Please report means over at least 3–5 seeds with standard deviations, or a significance test, for the three headline metrics.
  3. [§4.4, Table 1] The single-intervention variant is claimed to be 'significantly safer' at α=1.0 (HRR 3.54 vs 4.57), yet at α=0.75 the full mechanism is safer (7.32 vs 9.57). This non-monotonic crossover is unexplained and, without error bars, could be noise. The conclusion that 'a single, strong, and consistent intervention... can be a more robust strategy' is therefore not established. Please provide error bars and an explanation for the crossover.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] Typo: 'as shwon in Figure 1' should be 'as shown in Figure 1'.
  2. [Section 4.5.1] Typo: 'Harmful Response Rate (HHR)' should be 'HRR'.
  3. [Appendix C.2] The reported α range is {0.1, 1.0, 10.0}, while the main text (Section 4.2, Table 1) uses {0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0}. Please clarify which set was used for the main experiments.
  4. [Throughout] Inconsistent capitalization: 'Args Decoding' vs 'ARGS Decoding'.
  5. [Figure 2] The figure caption should define 'original safe' and 'original unsafe' more explicitly, and state the evaluation set size.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Safety axis is self-referential: HRR uses the same HarmBench guard that triggers rollback and rewards ARGS, so low HRR is partly a self-consistency score rather than independent safety evidence.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.1.2 Eq. (2); Section 4.1 Metrics; Appendix D.1; Appendix A]
    "Given a user query q and the full generated text so far, r(t)=Stream(t)⊕Buffer(t), the guard model G outputs a binary safety judgment: G(q,r(t))=1 if r(t) is unsafe, 0 if r(t) is safe. (2) ... [HRR] is defined as the proportion of all generated responses that are flagged as unsafe by an open source Guard Model, specifically the cais/HarmBench-Llama-2-13b-cls model. ... The framework's safety guarantee is only as strong as its Guard Model."

    The headline safety metric HRR is literally the flag rate of G. The rollback loop is triggered by the same G and repeats until G says the buffered content is safe, so the method directly minimizes the exact quantity later reported as HRR. A low HRR therefore means 'few responses fail G after G-guided rollback', not 'few responses are harmful' under an independent standard. This is a definitional coupling: the evaluation instrument is part of the control loop. If G is miscalibrated on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct/BeaverTails, the absolute HRR values and the relative ordering of methods (e.g., 4.53 vs 4.57) are not independently meaningful. Appendix A acknowledges the limitation, but the reported safety conclusion still rests on this same guard.

  2. other [Appendix C.3 (ARGS reward); Section 4.2 (ARGS results); Appendix D.1 (HRR)]
    "In our implementation, the reward model used is HarmBench-Llama-2-13b-cls, whose task is to evaluate whether a given candidate token contributes to a safe response, which is also the guard model we used for real-time monitoring."

    For ARGS, the per-token reward is G's 'safe' logit and the headline HRR is G's 'unsafe' flag rate on the final response. Thus ARGS's reported safety improvement is, by construction, the extent to which G-guided search succeeds at satisfying G. Comparing Introspection's HRR to ARGS's HRR is a comparison of two methods on the same classifier that one of them is explicitly optimizing; it is not evidence about harmfulness outside G. This makes the safety axis partially self-referential, though the quality and latency comparisons retain independent content.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical rather than a formal derivation, and the empirical safety axis is circular in the sense that the evaluation instrument G is also the controller (Eq. 2) and the ARGS reward (Appendix C.3), while HRR is defined by G (Appendix D.1). By construction, any method that successfully conditions on G's judgments will lower HRR; this is not an independent measure of harmfulness. This matches score 6 (partial circularity) because the quality metric (GPT-4o judge), latency (AWT), and the rollback/introspection mechanisms themselves have independent content. I found no load-bearing self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no renaming of a known result: Introspection is a concrete prompting/rollback scheme, and prior-work citations on thinking interventions are used only as motivation. The Appendix A limitation ('only as strong as its Guard Model') is correctly stated but does not fix the metric-dependence; the paper should validate the guard on Qwen outputs or use an independent judge for HRR. The lack of uncertainty estimates or multiple seeds is a robustness concern, not a circularity issue, and is not counted in the score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical objects. Its central claim depends on the validity of a specific classifier as a harmfulness oracle, the representativeness of the BeaverTails dataset, and an unverified implementation assumption about KV-cache rollback. All remaining free parameters are hyperparameters chosen or swept by hand.

free parameters (7)
  • buffer size b = 40 (20-60 in scaling)
    Number of hidden tokens subject to rollback; chosen by hand, swept in Section 4.3.
  • max retries N = 5 (1-28 in scaling)
    Maximum rollback attempts per response; chosen by hand, swept in Section 4.3.
  • contrastive decoding strength alpha = {0.1, 1.0, 10.0}
    Intervention strength in logit subtraction; tuned per baseline to map capability boundary.
  • ARGS beta = {0.1, 1.0, 10.0}
    Reward scaling factor in ARGS; tuned.
  • ARGS top-k = 10
    Candidate tokens evaluated by guard per step; chosen for efficiency.
  • introspection temperature = 1.1
    Sampling temperature for generating introspective statements; tuned in Section 4.5.2.
  • judge weight = 3
    Weight for strong preference labels in quality score mapping; set in Appendix D.3.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption HarmBench-Llama-2-13b-cls binary classification reliably identifies harmful responses
    Used as both the real-time guard (Eq. 2) and the HRR metric (Appendix D.1); the framework's safety claims depend on this classifier's validity.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o-11-20 is a valid reference and judge for response quality
    Response quality is measured as win-rate against GPT-4o, judged by GPT-4o; assumes this proxy reflects human-perceived quality.
  • domain assumption BeaverTails queries are representative of real-world harmful and benign usage
    All conclusions are drawn from this single dataset, without external validation on other safety benchmarks.
  • domain assumption KV cache can be exactly rewound b steps to discard the faulty generation path
    The rollback mechanism (Section 3.1.3) assumes in-flight rollback of internal generation state; no implementation evidence or ablation is given for this mechanism.
  • domain assumption Inserting a self-critical prefix into the buffer steers subsequent decoding toward safety
    The Introspection method's premise is that reflective text changes the output distribution; supported only by ablations on one dataset.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CARE: Decoding Time Safety Alignment via Rollback and Introspection Intervention." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HKKPGHWL

@misc{pith2026250906982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CARE: Decoding Time Safety Alignment via Rollback and Introspection Intervention},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HKKPGHWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06982}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, ensuring the safety of their outputs during decoding has become a critical challenge. However, existing decoding-time interventions, such as Contrastive Decoding, often force a severe trade-off between safety and response quality. In this work, we propose CARE, a novel framework for decoding-time safety alignment that integrates three key components: (1) a guard model for real-time safety monitoring, enabling detection of potentially unsafe content; (2) a rollback mechanism with a token buffer to correct unsafe outputs efficiently at an earlier stage without disrupting the user experience; and (3) a novel introspection-based intervention strategy, where the model generates self-reflective critiques of its previous outputs and incorporates these reflections into the context to guide subsequent decoding steps. The framework achieves a superior safety-quality trade-off by using its guard model for precise interventions, its rollback mechanism for timely corrections, and our novel introspection method for effective self-correction. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves a superior balance of safety, quality, and efficiency, attaining a low harmful response rate and minimal disruption to the user experience while maintaining high response quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06982 by Chenhan Yuan, Fei Huang, Junyang Lin, Tsung-Yi Ho, Xiaomeng Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: This diagram illustrates the process of ensuring content safety using our detect-rollback [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance of Contrastive Decod￾ing with varying intervention level. The left axis shows the Harmful Response Rate, as measured by an LLM-based guard model; the right axis indicates response quality assessed using an LLM-as-a-judge framework. Ad￾ditional details about the evaluation are pro￾vided in the Appendix B. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of vanilla versus detect-rollback-intervene enhanced intervention meth￾ods, showing the trade-off between Harmful Response Rate (y-axis, lower is better) and Response Quality (x-axis, higher is better). The numbers beside each marker denote the intervention strength hyperparameter: α for Contrastive Decoding (left) and β for Args Decoding (right). For detailed definitions of these hyperparameter… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comprehensive performance comparison of our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The trade-off between performance and user-perceived latency (Average Wait Tokens) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of Temperature on Introspection Intervention Performance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: System Prompt for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct The model is used with its default configuration settings: the repetition penalty is set to 1.05, the temperature is set to 0.7, and the top-p and top-k sampling parameters are configured to 0.8 and 20, respectively. Amateur Model. We utilize the Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-Uncensored 6 as the amateur model for our pilot study. During text generation, the system prompt is conf… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: System Prompt for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-Uncensored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: System Prompt for HarmBench-Llama-2-13b-cls [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Second, the judge model performs a pairwise comparison between the responses generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: System Prompt for the Judge Model (GPT-4o-1120) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Introspection Prompt Template Implementation: When the guard model identifies potentially harmful content in the buffer, the following steps are executed: 1. Clear the buffer: xn+1:n+b ← ∅ 2. Prompt the model for introspection: A structured prompt (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparative Example on addressing public safety threats. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparative Example on mitigating risks of infringing personal privacy. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparative Example on mitigating fraud and extortion risks. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Beyond Attack Success Rate: Temporal Logit Observability for LLM Safety Failures

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TLO is a logit-based diagnostic that visualizes temporal patterns of LLM jailbreak failures on a calibrated 2D plane, distinguishing attacks with identical ASR and enabling early stopping that reduces successful jailb...

  2. TrajGuard: Streaming Hidden-state Trajectory Detection for Decoding-time Jailbreak Defense

    cs.CR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TrajGuard detects jailbreaks by tracking how hidden-state trajectories move toward high-risk regions during decoding, achieving 95% defense rate with 5.2 ms/token latency across tested attacks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Bowman, Ethan Perez, Roger B

    Cem Anil, Esin Durmus, Nina Panickssery, Mrinank Sharma, Joe Benton, Sandipan Kundu, Joshua Batson, Meg Tong, Jesse Mu, Daniel Ford, Francesco Mosconi, Rajashree Agrawal, Ry- lan Schaeffer, Naomi Bashkansky, Samuel Svenningsen, Mike Lambert, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Carson Denison, Evan Hubinger, Yuntao Bai, Trenton Bricken, Timothy Maxwell, Nicholas Schiefer,...

    2024

  2. [2]

    Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, and Jared Kaplan

    Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Benjamin Mann, Nova DasSarma, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Jackson Kernion, Kamal Ndousse, Catherine Olsson, Dario Amodei, Tom B. Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, and Jared Kaplan. A general language assistant as ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Benjamin Mann, and Jared Kaplan

    Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Saurav Kadavath, Jackson Kernion, Tom Conerly, Sheer El Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Pappas, and Eric Wong

    Patrick Chao, Alexander Robey, Edgar Dobriban, Hamed Hassani, George J. Pappas, and Eric Wong. Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries. CoRR, abs/2310.08419, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    DeepSeek-AI. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/2501.12948, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Ximing Dong, Dayi Lin, Shaowei Wang, and Ahmed E. Hassan. A framework for real-time safeguarding the text generation of large language model. CoRR, abs/2404.19048, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Safeguarding Large Language Models in Real-time with Tunable Safety-Performance Trade-offs

    João Fonseca, Andrew Bell, and Julia Stoyanovich. Safeguarding large language models in real-time with tunable safety-performance trade-offs. CoRR, abs/2501.02018, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Gradient cuff: Detecting jailbreak attacks on large language models by exploring refusal loss landscapes

    Xiaomeng Hu, Pin-Yu Chen, and Tsung-Yi Ho. Gradient cuff: Detecting jailbreak attacks on large language models by exploring refusal loss landscapes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIPS 2024, Vancouver,BC, Canada, December 10 - 15, 2024, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Attention slipping: A mechanistic understanding of jailbreak attacks and defenses in llms

    Xiaomeng Hu, Pin-Yu Chen, and Tsung-Yi Ho. Attention slipping: A mechanistic understanding of jailbreak attacks and defenses in llms. CoRR, abs/2507.04365, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Token highlighter: Inspecting and mitigating jailbreak prompts for large language models

    Xiaomeng Hu, Pin-Yu Chen, and Tsung-Yi Ho. Token highlighter: Inspecting and mitigating jailbreak prompts for large language models. In AAAI-25, Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, February 25 - March 4, 2025, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pages 27330–27338, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Baseline defenses for adversarial attacks against aligned language models

    Neel Jain, Avi Schwarzschild, Yuxin Wen, Gowthami Somepalli, John Kirchenbauer, Ping-yeh Chiang, Micah Goldblum, Aniruddha Saha, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. Baseline defenses for adversarial attacks against aligned language models. CoRR, abs/2309.00614, 2023. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Beavertails: Towards improved safety alignment of LLM via a human-preference dataset

    Jiaming Ji, Mickel Liu, Josef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Chi Zhang, Ce Bian, Boyuan Chen, Ruiyang Sun, Yizhou Wang, and Yaodong Yang. Beavertails: Towards improved safety alignment of LLM via a human-preference dataset. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans...

    2023

  13. [13]

    In conversation with artificial intelligence: aligning language models with human values

    Atoosa Kasirzadeh and Iason Gabriel. In conversation with artificial intelligence: aligning language models with human values. CoRR, abs/2209.00731, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    ARGS: alignment as reward-guided search

    Maxim Khanov, Jirayu Burapacheep, and Yixuan Li. ARGS: alignment as reward-guided search. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica

    Tianle Li, Wei-Lin Chiang, Evan Frick, Lisa Dunlap, Tianhao Wu, Banghua Zhu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. From crowdsourced data to high-quality benchmarks: Arena-hard and benchbuilder pipeline. CoRR, abs/2406.11939, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Contrastive decoding: Open-ended text generation as optimization

    Xiang Lisa Li, Ari Holtzman, Daniel Fried, Percy Liang, Jason Eisner, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. Contrastive decoding: Open-ended text generation as optimization. CoRR, abs/2210.15097, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models

    Xiaogeng Liu, Nan Xu, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models. CoRR, abs/2310.04451, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    The llama 3 herd of models, 2024

    AI @ Meta Llama Team. The llama 3 herd of models, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Erfani, Bo Li, Masashi Sugiyama, Dacheng Tao, James Bailey, and Yu-Gang Jiang

    Xingjun Ma, Yifeng Gao, Yixu Wang, Ruofan Wang, Xin Wang, Ye Sun, Yifan Ding, Hengyuan Xu, Yunhao Chen, Yunhan Zhao, Hanxun Huang, Yige Li, Jiaming Zhang, Xiang Zheng, Yang Bai, Zuxuan Wu, Xipeng Qiu, Jingfeng Zhang, Yiming Li, Jun Sun, Cong Wang, Jindong Gu, Baoyuan Wu, Siheng Chen, Tianwei Zhang, Yang Liu, Mingming Gong, Tongliang Liu, Shirui Pan, Cihan...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Tree of attacks: Jailbreaking black-box llms automatically

    Anay Mehrotra, Manolis Zampetakis, Paul Kassianik, Blaine Nelson, Hyrum Anderson, Yaron Singer, and Amin Karbasi. Tree of attacks: Jailbreaking black-box llms automatically. CoRR, abs/2312.02119, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    GPT-4 technical report

    OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report. CoRR, abs/2303.08774, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human fee...

    2022

  23. [23]

    Alexander Robey, Eric Wong, Hamed Hassani, and George J. Pappas. Smoothllm: Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks. CoRR, abs/2310.03684, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Constitutional classifiers: Defending against universal jailbreaks across thousands of hours of red teaming

    Anthropic Safeguards Research Team. Constitutional classifiers: Defending against universal jailbreaks across thousands of hours of red teaming. CoRR, abs/2501.18837, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Think before refusal : Triggering safety reflection in llms to mitigate false refusal behavior

    Shengyun Si, Xinpeng Wang, Guangyao Zhai, Nassir Navab, and Barbara Plank. Think before refusal : Triggering safety reflection in llms to mitigate false refusal behavior. CoRR, abs/2503.17882, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Meta llama guard 2

    Llama Team. Meta llama guard 2. https://github.com/meta-llama/PurpleLlama/ blob/main/Llama-Guard2/MODEL_CARD.md, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Qwen2.5 technical report

    Qwen Team. Qwen2.5 technical report. CoRR, abs/2412.15115, 2024. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Yu, Qingsong Wen, and Yang Liu

    Kun Wang, Guibin Zhang, Zhenhong Zhou, Jiahao Wu, Miao Yu, Shiqian Zhao, Chenlong Yin, Jinhu Fu, Yibo Yan, Hanjun Luo, Liang Lin, Zhihao Xu, Haolang Lu, Xinye Cao, Xinyun Zhou, Weifei Jin, Fanci Meng, Junyuan Mao, Hao Wu, Minghe Wang, Fan Zhang, Junfeng Fang, Chengwei Liu, Yifan Zhang, Qiankun Li, Chongye Guo, Yalan Qin, Yi Ding, Donghai Hong, Jiaming Ji,...

    2025

  29. [29]

    Wang, and Prateek Mittal

    Tong Wu, Chong Xiang, Jiachen T. Wang, and Prateek Mittal. Effectively controlling reasoning models through thinking intervention. CoRR, abs/2503.24370, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    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. Nat. Mac. Intell., 5(12):1486–1496, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    Safedecoding: Defending against jailbreak attacks via safety-aware decoding

    Zhangchen Xu, Fengqing Jiang, Luyao Niu, Jinyuan Jia, Bill Yuchen Lin, and Radha Pooven- dran. Safedecoding: Defending against jailbreak attacks via safety-aware decoding. 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey.CoRR, abs/2407.04295, 2024

    Sibo Yi, Yule Liu, Zhen Sun, Tianshuo Cong, Xinlei He, Jiaxing Song, Ke Xu, and Qi Li. Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey.CoRR, abs/2407.04295, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    ROSE doesn’t do that: Boosting the safety of instruction-tuned large language models with reverse prompt contrastive decoding

    Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao. ROSE doesn’t do that: Boosting the safety of instruction-tuned large language models with reverse prompt contrastive decoding. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand and virtual meeting, August 11-16, 2024, pages 13721–13736, 2024

    2024

  34. [34]

    Reasoning-to- defend: Safety-aware reasoning can defend large language models from jailbreaking

    Junda Zhu, Lingyong Yan, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, and Lei Sha. Reasoning-to- defend: Safety-aware reasoning can defend large language models from jailbreaking. CoRR, abs/2502.12970, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    No Free Lunch

    Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, J. Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models. CoRR, abs/2307.15043, 2023. 14 Appendix A Limitations The experimental results highlight that our proposed CARE framework significantly boosts the effectiveness of existing decoding-time intervention methods. However, despi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Assistant A is significantly better: [[A»B]]

  37. [37]

    Assistant A is slightly better: [[A>B]]

  38. [38]

    Tie, relatively the same: [[A=B]]

  39. [39]

    Assistant B is slightly better: [[B>A]]

  40. [40]

    Assistant B is significantly better: [[B»A]] Example output: My final verdict is tie: [[A=B]]. Figure 4: System Prompt for the Judge Model (GPT-4o-1120) C Intervention Methods: Principles and Implementations In this section, we present the underlying principles and implementation details of each intervention technique explored in this work: • Rollback and...

  41. [42]

    Since we use the same configuration A, the sampling parameters such as temperature T , top-k, or top-p remain unchanged across retries

    Re-sample new tokens conditioned on the user query q and previously confirmed safe tokens x1:n: xn+1:n+b A ∼ lexpert(· |q, x1:n) where lexpert denotes the LLM’s distribution (logits level), and A is the configuration for the LLMs to generate the original x1:n+b, it contains the values for temperature, top-p, top-k, etc. Since we use the same configuration...

  42. [43]

    amateur model

    Limit the number of retries: A predefined maximum retry count N prevents infinite loops in cases where no safe generation is found. where A′ denotes the current set of sampling configurations, including the modified temperature value and relaxed sampling constraints (top-p, top-k, etc). C.2 Contrastive Decoding Principle: Contrastive Decoding is similar t...

  43. [45]

    The expert model and the amateur model separately compute the logits for the current context: lexpert(xt|q, x<t) =logits from the expert model for the subsequent token lamateur(xt|q, x<t) =logits from the amateur model for the subsequent token

  44. [46]

    The logits are adjusted according to the formula: l′ expert(xt|q, x<t) =lexpert(xt|q, x<t) − αlamateur(xt|q, x<t) 4

  45. [47]

    Under this new distribution, the model generates a new set of b tokens using the exact same sampling strategy as in Repeated Sampling, i.e., under configuration A, which includes settings such as top-k, top-p, and the temperature: xn+1:n+b A ∼ l′ expert(· |q, x1:n)

  46. [48]

    The expert model used is Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, with its system prompt shown in Figure 1

    If the newly generated content still contains unsafe sequences, the system retries up to a maximum of N times. The expert model used is Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, with its system prompt shown in Figure 1. The amateur model is Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-Uncensored, with its system prompt shown in Figure 2. The scaling factor α is set to {0.1, 1.0, 10.0} to explore diff...

  47. [49]

    When the guard model detects potentially harmful content in the current buffer, the buffer is cleared: xn+1:n+b ← ∅

  48. [50]

    The expert model generates the raw logits for the next token given the current context q and the previously confirmed safe history x<t: lexpert(xt|q, x<t) =logits from the expert model for the subsequent token

  49. [51]

    From these logits, the top-k candidate tokens are selected: Tk = top-k (lexpert(·|q, x<t))

    work page

  50. [52]

    safe"|q, x<t ⊕ xt), ∀xt ∈ Tk where lguard(

    The guard model evaluates each of these k candidates and provides a safety reward signal: r(xt|q, x<t) =lguard("safe"|q, x<t ⊕ xt), ∀xt ∈ Tk where lguard("safe"|·) denotes the safety logit score produced by the guard model

    work page

  51. [53]

    Adjust the logits corresponding to the tokens using the reward signal: l′ expert(xt|q, x<t) = lexpert(xt|q, x<t) +β · r(xt|q, x<t), x t ∈ Tk −∞, otherwise 5

    work page

  52. [54]

    Under this updated logits distribution, the model regenerates the b new tokens in the buffer using the exact same sampling strategy as in Repeated Sampling, i.e., under configuration A′′, which includes settings such as top-k, top-p, and temperature: xn+1:n+b A′′ ∼ l′ expert(· |q, x1:n)

    work page

  53. [55]

    step back

    If the newly generated content still contains unsafe sequences, the system retries up to a maximum of N times. We set β ∈ {0.1, 1.0, 10.0} to explore the performance at different levels of intervention intensity. C.4 Introspection Intervention Principle: Introspection Intervention introduces a novel, self-aware approach to decoding-time safety alignment. ...

    work page

  54. [57]

    Prompt the model for introspection: A structured prompt (see Figure 5 ) is constructed to elicit a self-reflective critique from the model

    work page

  55. [58]

    oh I’m sorry, I just realized that providing such information might be inappropriate and potentially harmful. I should

    Generate the introspection: The model responds to this prompt by generating a brief self- critique critiques like "... oh I’m sorry, I just realized that providing such information might be inappropriate and potentially harmful. I should ..." . Let the length of this reflection be c = |critiques|

    work page

  56. [59]

    • Case 2 (Long introspection): If c ≥ b, only the first b tokens of r are retained and used to fill the buffer: xn+1:n+b = critiques1:b 6

    Handle buffer regeneration based on introspection length: Depending on the length of the introspection output critiques, we proceed as follows: • Case 1 (Short introspection): If c < b, the introspection prefix critiques is placed at the beginning of the buffer, and the model continues generating b − c additional tokens to fill the remaining space: xn+1:n...

    work page

  57. [60]

    oh I’m sorry, I just realized

    If the newly generated content still contains unsafe sequences, the system retries up to a maximum of N times. C.5 Shallow Introspection Principle: Shallow Introspection is a lightweight intervention method that does not require the model to generate explicit self-reflective statements. Instead, it guides the language model to adjust its behavior during g...

    work page

  58. [61]

    Clear the buffer: xn+1:n+b ← ∅

  59. [62]

    oh I’m sorry, I just realized

    Insert fixed introspection prefix: A predefined reflective prefix critiquesfixed is inserted into the current context. For example: critiquesfixed = "... oh I’m sorry, I just realized"

    work page

  60. [63]

    • Case 2 (Prefix is long): If c ≥ b, only the first b tokens of rfixed are used to fill the buffer: xn+1:n+b = critiquesfixed[1 :b]

    Handle buffer filling based on prefix length: Depending on the length of the prefix critiquesfixed, denoted as c = |critiquesfixed|, we proceed as follows: • Case 1 (Prefix is short): If c < b, the fixed prefix is placed at the beginning of the buffer, and the model generates b − c additional tokens to fill the remaining space: xn+1:n+b = critiquesfixed ⊕...

    work page

  61. [64]

    Retry if necessary: If the newly generated content still contains unsafe sequences, the system retries up to a maximum of N times. D Evaluation Metrics In this section, we provide a detailed description of the three core evaluation metrics used in our experiments (Section 4): Intervention Success Rate, Average Wait Tokens, and Response Quality. These metr...

    work page

  62. [65]

    The expert model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) generates responses to all queries in our framework

    work page

  63. [66]

    The reference model (GPT-4o-11-20) generates responses to all queries out of our framework

    work page

  64. [67]

    A>B", "A=B

    For each query, the judge model (GPT-4o-11-20) performs a pairwise comparison between the two responses and determines which one is of higher quality. We follow the Arena-Hard [15] evaluation criteria, including aspects such as helpfulness, relevance, conciseness, and correctness. The system prompt can be found at Figure 4. The judgment results are proces...

    work page

  65. [68]

    **Water**: Simply sprinkle water on the surface. This... Oh I’m sorry, I just realized that my previous response might inadvertently provide information that could be misused. Safety should always be the top priority, and creating a slippery walkway poses significant risks of injury. If you need to address a slippery surface, it’s best to take steps to im...

    work page

  66. [69]

    **Remove the Substance:** Clean up any liquid or debris that might be causing the slipperiness

    work page

  67. [70]

    **Use Ice Melt:** For icy conditions, use ice melt products designed for walkways

    work page

  68. [71]

    **Place Warning Signs:** Use signs to alert people of the slippery conditions

    work page

  69. [72]

    **Apply Anti-Slip Products:** Use anti-slip mats, grit, or sand to increase traction

    work page

  70. [73]

    **Sealant Application:** Apply an anti-slip sealant to concrete surfaces

    work page

  71. [74]

    If you have a specific reason for wanting to reduce slipperiness, please provide more context so I can offer appropriate advice

    **Maintenance:** Regularly clean and maintain the walkway to prevent buildup of substances that cause slipperiness. If you have a specific reason for wanting to reduce slipperiness, please provide more context so I can offer appropriate advice. Figure 6: Comparative Example on addressing public safety threats. The red text with strikethrough represents th...

    work page

  72. [75]

    Often, people share their location through posts, stories, or check-ins

    **Social Media**: Check if she has a public profile on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. Often, people share their location through posts, stories, or check-ins

    work page

  73. [76]

    Respect her privacy by not asking directly about her address; instead, ask about her neighborhood or city

    **Common Friends**: Talk to mutual friends who might know her address or at least the area she lives in. Respect her privacy by not asking directly about her address; instead, ask about her neighborhood or city

    work page

  74. [77]

    However, this is generally not recommended unless you have a strong reason to believe it’s necessary and you have her consent

    **Public Records**: In some cases, you might be able to find her address through public records, such as property tax records or voter registration lists. However, this is generally not recommended unless you have a strong reason to believe it’s necessary and you have her consent

    work page

  75. [78]

    This shows respect for her privacy and gives her the opportunity to share information on her own terms

    **Ask Her Directly**: If you feel comfortable doing so, you could simply ask her where she lives. This shows respect for her privacy and gives her the opportunity to share information on her own terms

    work page

  76. [79]

    This allows you to get to know each other better without needing to know her exact address

    **Indirect Methods**: You could also try to meet up in public places or events where you both attend. This allows you to get to know each other better without needing to know her exact address

    work page

  77. [80]

    Remember, respecting her privacy and boundaries is crucial

    **Use Apps**: Some apps can provide approximate locations based on check-ins or activity patterns, but these methods often require her to have shared her location publicly, which is generally not advisable. Remember, respecting her privacy and boundaries is crucial. If you feel she might not be comfortable with you knowing her address, it’s best to wait u...

    work page

  78. [81]

    It’s crucial to prioritize the individual’s comfort and consent

    **Ask Directly**: The most straightforward way is to simply ask her if you can visit or meet at herOh I’m sorry, I just realized that my previous response might not fully address the complexity of the situation while also respecting privacy and safety. It’s crucial to prioritize the individual’s comfort and consent. Here are some general guidelines:

    work page

  79. [82]

    **Ask Her Directly:** The most straightforward way is to ask her if she wants to share this information with you

    work page

  80. [83]

    However, be cautious about how you use this information and respect her privacy settings

    **Social Media:** If she’s comfortable sharing it on social media platforms, you can usually find her location there. However, be cautious about how you use this information and respect her privacy settings

    work page

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.