Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Detectors for Safe and Reliable LLMs: Implementations, Uses, and Limitations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

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

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

arxiv 2403.06009 v3 pith:LEPMW6UX submitted 2024-03-09 cs.LG

Swapnaja Achintalwar , Adriana Alvarado Garcia , Ateret Anaby-Tavor , Ioana Baldini , Sara E. Berger , Bishwaranjan Bhattacharjee , Djallel Bouneffouf , Subhajit Chaudhury
show 30 more authors
Pin-Yu Chen Lamogha Chiazor Elizabeth M. Daly Kirushikesh DB Rogério Abreu de Paula Pierre Dognin Eitan Farchi Soumya Ghosh Michael Hind Raya Horesh George Kour Ja Young Lee Nishtha Madaan Sameep Mehta Erik Miehling Keerthiram Murugesan Manish Nagireddy Inkit Padhi David Piorkowski Ambrish Rawat Orna Raz Prasanna Sattigeri Hendrik Strobelt Sarathkrishna Swaminathan Christoph Tillmann Aashka Trivedi Kush R. Varshney Dennis Wei Shalisha Witherspooon Marcel Zalmanovici
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords detectorsllmsmodelsreliablediscussusesaccessacting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to a variety of risks, from non-faithful output to biased and toxic generations. Due to several limiting factors surrounding LLMs (training cost, API access, data availability, etc.), it may not always be feasible to impose direct safety constraints on a deployed model. Therefore, an efficient and reliable alternative is required. To this end, we present our ongoing efforts to create and deploy a library of detectors: compact and easy-to-build classification models that provide labels for various harms. In addition to the detectors themselves, we discuss a wide range of uses for these detector models - from acting as guardrails to enabling effective AI governance. We also deep dive into inherent challenges in their development and discuss future work aimed at making the detectors more reliable and broadening their scope.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Scopes of Alignment

    cs.CY 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Alignment should be defined by three scopes, competence, transience, and audience, rather than by generic context-free values.

  2. Granite Guardian

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Granite Guardian 2B and 8B are open-source LLM guardrails that detect harmful content, jailbreaks, and RAG hallucination risks, reporting AUC 0.871 on harm benchmarks and 0.854 on groundedness benchmarks.

  3. Paying Alignment Tax with Contrastive Learning

    cs.LG 2025-05 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A contrastive learning framework with positive and negative example pairs improves faithfulness and slightly reduces toxicity on Reddit TL;DR summarization, but the central claim of avoiding the alignment tax is not e...

  4. Usage Governance Advisor: From Intent to AI Governance

    cs.AI 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper describes an IBM proof-of-concept system that combines a knowledge graph and LLM pipelines to convert a use-case description into prioritized risks, model choices, benchmarks, and mitigation actions.

Pith tools