Daily Papers

Large language models are increasingly used in multi-agent systems, where they see and respond to other agents' answers. A key risk is conformity: a model may abandon its own answer simply because others agree on a different one. Prior studies show that LLMs often revise toward a majority answer, but it remains unclear whether these revisions help correct mistakes as often as they introduce new errors. In this paper, we conduct a controlled study in which an LLM first answers a question, then sees simulated peer responses before making a final decision. We manipulate two social cues: consensus structure and authority labels assigned to peers, and measure how they influence beneficial and harmful revisions. Across four open-weight LLMs and seven QA datasets, we find that peer agreement makes it much easier to mislead initially correct models than to correct initially wrong ones. Authority labels make models more likely to choose the endorsed answer, regardless of whether it is correct. More concerningly, generic reasoning interventions such as chain-of-thought and reflection do not reliably reduce harmful revision while preserving beneficial revision. These findings suggest that multi-agent LLM systems should verify peer answers rather than simply aggregate them.

LLM conformity is often used to describe cases where a model changes a correct answer toward a peer or group response. We show that most of this apparent conformity survives even after the peer is removed. The reason is a confound: standard conformity prompts mix two cues at once, the presence of a speaker and the repeated wrong answer itself. Existing benchmarks vary these cues together, so they cannot tell how much of the revision actually depends on the speaker. We introduce a no-source condition: the same asserted answer with the explicit speaker removed. Across six open-weight LLMs and seven QA and reasoning datasets, this condition alone causes harmful revision in 66.5% of initially correct cases, compared with 10.3% under a plain re-ask. The effect also remains when the repeated answer is paraphrased and when answer options are hidden in an open-ended setting. Source framing mainly modulates this floor: expert-panel framing raises it, while minimal person labels do not reliably raise it. When models flip, they are usually confidently wrong, and simple recalibration does not recover the original answer. Source attribution still matters, but it should be measured as an increment above this speaker-free floor. The methodological lesson is that conformity benchmarks should first measure what remains after the speaker is removed; without this step, benchmarks may mistake repeated text for social influence.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts where their failures can have direct sociopolitical consequences. Yet, existing safety benchmarks rarely test vulnerabilities in domains such as political manipulation, propaganda and disinformation generation, or surveillance and information control. We introduce SocialHarmBench, a dataset of 585 prompts spanning 7 sociopolitical categories and 34 countries, designed to surface where LLMs most acutely fail in politically charged contexts. Our evaluations reveal several shortcomings: open-weight models exhibit high vulnerability to harmful compliance, with Mistral-7B reaching attack success rates as high as 97% to 98% in domains such as historical revisionism, propaganda, and political manipulation. Moreover, temporal and geographic analyses show that LLMs are most fragile when confronted with 21st-century or pre-20th-century contexts, and when responding to prompts tied to regions such as Latin America, the USA, and the UK. These findings demonstrate that current safeguards fail to generalize to high-stakes sociopolitical settings, exposing systematic biases and raising concerns about the reliability of LLMs in preserving human rights and democratic values. We share the SocialHarmBench benchmark at https://huggingface.co/datasets/psyonp/SocialHarmBench.

Harmful fine-tuning issue qi2023fine poses serious safety concerns for Large language models' fine-tuning-as-a-service. While existing defenses huang2024vaccine,rosati2024representation have been proposed to mitigate the issue, their performances are still far away from satisfactory, and the root cause of the problem has not been fully recovered. For the first time in the literature, we in this paper show that harmful perturbation over the model weights should be the root cause of alignment-broken of harmful fine-tuning. In order to attenuate the negative impact of harmful perturbation, we propose an alignment-stage solution, dubbed Booster. Technically, along with the original alignment loss, we append a loss regularizer in the alignment stage's optimization. The regularizer ensures that the model's harmful loss reduction before/after simulated harmful perturbation is attenuated, thereby mitigating the subsequent fine-tuning risk. Empirical results show that Booster can effectively reduce the harmful score of the fine-tuned models while maintaining the performance of downstream tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/git-disl/Booster.

Recent research demonstrates that the nascent fine-tuning-as-a-service business model exposes serious safety concerns -- fine-tuning over a few harmful data uploaded by the users can compromise the safety alignment of the model. The attack, known as harmful fine-tuning, has raised a broad research interest among the community. However, as the attack is still new, we observe from our miserable submission experience that there are general misunderstandings within the research community. We in this paper aim to clear some common concerns for the attack setting, and formally establish the research problem. Specifically, we first present the threat model of the problem, and introduce the harmful fine-tuning attack and its variants. Then we systematically survey the existing literature on attacks/defenses/mechanical analysis of the problem. Finally, we outline future research directions that might contribute to the development of the field. Additionally, we present a list of questions of interest, which might be useful to refer to when reviewers in the peer review process question the realism of the experiment/attack/defense setting. A curated list of relevant papers is maintained and made accessible at: https://github.com/git-disl/awesome_LLM-harmful-fine-tuning-papers.

Safety aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to harmful fine-tuning attacks qi2023fine-- a few harmful data mixed in the fine-tuning dataset can break the LLMs's safety alignment. Existing mitigation strategies include alignment stage solutions huang2024vaccine, rosati2024representation and fine-tuning stage solutions huang2024lazy,mukhoti2023fine. However, our evaluation shows that both categories of defenses fail when some specific training hyper-parameters are chosen -- a large learning rate or a large number of training epochs in the fine-tuning stage can easily invalidate the defense, which however, is necessary to guarantee finetune performance. To this end, we propose Antidote, a post-fine-tuning stage solution, which remains \textit{agnostic to the training hyper-parameters in the fine-tuning stage}. Antidote relies on the philosophy that by removing the harmful parameters, the harmful model can be recovered from the harmful behaviors, regardless of how those harmful parameters are formed in the fine-tuning stage. With this philosophy, we introduce a one-shot pruning stage after harmful fine-tuning to remove the harmful weights that are responsible for the generation of harmful content. Despite its embarrassing simplicity, empirical results show that Antidote can reduce harmful score while maintaining accuracy on downstream tasks.Our project page is at https://huangtiansheng.github.io/Antidote_gh_page/

Generative language models (LMs) offer numerous advantages but may produce inappropriate or harmful outputs due to the harmful knowledge acquired during pre-training. This knowledge often manifests as undesirable correspondences, such as "harmful prompts" leading to "harmful outputs," which our research aims to mitigate through unlearning techniques.However, existing unlearning methods based on gradient ascent can significantly impair the performance of LMs. To address this issue, we propose a novel approach called Weighted Positional N-pair (WPN) Learning, which leverages position-weighted mean pooling within an n-pair contrastive learning framework. WPN is designed to modify the output distribution of LMs by eliminating specific harmful outputs (e.g., replacing toxic responses with neutral ones), thereby transforming the model's behavior from "harmful prompt-harmful output" to "harmful prompt-harmless response".Experiments on OPT and GPT-NEO LMs show that WPN effectively reduces the proportion of harmful responses, achieving a harmless rate of up to 95.8\% while maintaining stable performance on nine common benchmarks (with less than 2\% degradation on average). Moreover, we provide empirical evidence to demonstrate WPN's ability to weaken the harmful correspondences in terms of generalizability and robustness, as evaluated on out-of-distribution test sets and under adversarial attacks.

We study how to perform unlearning, i.e. forgetting undesirable misbehaviors, on large language models (LLMs). We show at least three scenarios of aligning LLMs with human preferences can benefit from unlearning: (1) removing harmful responses, (2) erasing copyright-protected content as requested, and (3) reducing hallucinations. Unlearning, as an alignment technique, has three advantages. (1) It only requires negative (e.g. harmful) examples, which are much easier and cheaper to collect (e.g. via red teaming or user reporting) than positive (e.g. helpful and often human-written) examples required in RLHF (RL from human feedback). (2) It is computationally efficient. (3) It is especially effective when we know which training samples cause the misbehavior. To the best of our knowledge, our work is among the first to explore LLM unlearning. We are also among the first to formulate the settings, goals, and evaluations in LLM unlearning. We show that if practitioners only have limited resources, and therefore the priority is to stop generating undesirable outputs rather than to try to generate desirable outputs, unlearning is particularly appealing. Despite only having negative samples, our ablation study shows that unlearning can still achieve better alignment performance than RLHF with just 2% of its computational time.

Safety-aligned large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreaks and can over-refuse benign requests. Understanding these failures requires distinguishing harmfulness recognition from the computation that writes refusal. We reframe this as a pathway question and make it measurable on residual-stream updates in decoder-only Transformers, separating the harmfulness information a module update exposes from the change it produces in readable refusal evidence. Across 18 Base-Instruct pairs spanning Qwen, Llama, and Gemma, harmfulness is decoded more readily from attention updates, particularly in early layers, whereas MLP updates contribute more strongly to harm-selective refusal writing in aligned models. Post-training strengthens MLP refusal writing in all 18 pairs without systematically improving harmfulness decodability, while positive MLP writing becomes more concentrated in deeper layers after post-training. Across six reasoning-enabled models, harmfulness remains decodable during reasoning while strong refusal writing concentrates at answer onset, a pattern that persists with reasoning disabled. Causal interventions further support this pathway: resetting downstream MLP updates to their clean values substantially reduces the refusal shift caused by upstream attention interventions. Building on these findings, we introduce Sentinel, which combines an attention-derived perception score P with an MLP-derived decision score D. Their joint profiles characterize jailbreaks and over-refusals, and conditional routing with both signals achieves a lower aggregate error rate than single-signal routing and evaluated fixed reminders across eight models.

AI reviewers are increasingly used to assess scientific manuscripts, yet it remains unclear whether their judgments reflect the improvements authors make through revision. We investigate this question using PaperTrajectory-2026, the 2026 release of PaperTrajectory, a dataset of 6,959 paper trajectories across five AI conferences, with automatic annotations of changes along 14 dimensions and separate judgments of overall quality. The annotations show that major improvements emphasize empirical evidence and framing, while later revisions tend toward incremental improvement. Using independent assessments of manuscript versions from eight AI reviewers, we examine whether annotated major improvements receive higher scores, which revision dimensions are associated with score changes, and whether user opinions can outweigh observed revision gains. Every reviewer leaves scores unchanged on most major improvements, and agreement on the direction of score changes is weak. Revision dimensions show some reviewer-specific associations with score increases, but provide limited predictive discrimination and no consistent guide across reviewers. Even when a revision earns a higher neutral score, a brief negative user opinion can erase or reverse that advantage, with substantial variation across reviewers. These findings show that substantive revisions are not consistently reflected in review scores and that observed scoring gains can be vulnerable to user framing, motivating assessments that connect manuscript evidence to overall judgments and remain stable when no scientific evidence changes.

Many tasks revolve around editing a document, whether code or text. We formulate the revision similarity problem to unify a wide range of machine learning evaluation problems whose goal is to assess a revision to an existing document. We observe that revisions usually change only a small portion of an existing document, so the existing document and its immediate revisions share a majority of their content. We formulate five adequacy criteria for revision similarity measures, designed to align them with human judgement. We show that popular pairwise measures, like BLEU, fail to meet these criteria, because their scores are dominated by the shared content. They report high similarity between two revisions when humans would assess them as quite different. This is a fundamental flaw we address. We propose a novel static measure, Excision Score (ES), which computes longest common subsequence (LCS) to remove content shared by an existing document with the ground truth and predicted revisions, before comparing only the remaining divergent regions. This is analogous to a surgeon creating a sterile field to focus on the work area. We use approximation to speed the standard cubic LCS computation to quadratic. In code-editing evaluation, where static measures are often used as a cheap proxy for passing tests, we demonstrate that ES surpasses existing measures. When aligned with test execution on HumanEvalFix, ES improves over its nearest competitor, SARI, by 12% Pearson correlation and by >21% over standard measures like BLEU. The key criterion is invariance to shared context; when we perturb HumanEvalFix with increased shared context, ES' improvement over SARI increases to 20% and >30% over standard measures. ES also handles other corner cases that other measures do not, such as correctly aligning moved code blocks, and appropriately rewarding matching insertions or deletions.

In this position paper, we argue that the classical evaluation on Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks using annotated benchmarks is in trouble. The worst kind of data contamination happens when a Large Language Model (LLM) is trained on the test split of a benchmark, and then evaluated in the same benchmark. The extent of the problem is unknown, as it is not straightforward to measure. Contamination causes an overestimation of the performance of a contaminated model in a target benchmark and associated task with respect to their non-contaminated counterparts. The consequences can be very harmful, with wrong scientific conclusions being published while other correct ones are discarded. This position paper defines different levels of data contamination and argues for a community effort, including the development of automatic and semi-automatic measures to detect when data from a benchmark was exposed to a model, and suggestions for flagging papers with conclusions that are compromised by data contamination.

To address the risks of encountering inappropriate or harmful content, researchers managed to incorporate several harmful contents datasets with machine learning methods to detect harmful concepts. However, existing harmful datasets are curated by the presence of a narrow range of harmful objects, and only cover real harmful content sources. This hinders the generalizability of methods based on such datasets, potentially leading to misjudgments. Therefore, we propose a comprehensive harmful dataset, Visual Harmful Dataset 11K (VHD11K), consisting of 10,000 images and 1,000 videos, crawled from the Internet and generated by 4 generative models, across a total of 10 harmful categories covering a full spectrum of harmful concepts with nontrivial definition. We also propose a novel annotation framework by formulating the annotation process as a multi-agent Visual Question Answering (VQA) task, having 3 different VLMs "debate" about whether the given image/video is harmful, and incorporating the in-context learning strategy in the debating process. Therefore, we can ensure that the VLMs consider the context of the given image/video and both sides of the arguments thoroughly before making decisions, further reducing the likelihood of misjudgments in edge cases. Evaluation and experimental results demonstrate that (1) the great alignment between the annotation from our novel annotation framework and those from human, ensuring the reliability of VHD11K; (2) our full-spectrum harmful dataset successfully identifies the inability of existing harmful content detection methods to detect extensive harmful contents and improves the performance of existing harmfulness recognition methods; (3) VHD11K outperforms the baseline dataset, SMID, as evidenced by the superior improvement in harmfulness recognition methods. The complete dataset and code can be found at https://github.com/nctu-eva-lab/VHD11K.

Large language model (LLM) coding agents increasingly operate with shell access, allowing them to write scripts, move files, alter permissions, and modify system configurations. However, an agent may achieve a user's goal while causing unintended harm, such as deleting unrelated files, weakening access controls, or corrupting data, in response to benign inputs without explicit jailbreaking. This failure mode is particularly important because apparent task success may reassure users that an agent behaved correctly, causing harmful side effects to go unnoticed. We call this harmful success: the agent successfully completes the intended benign task while simultaneously causing unintended harm. Despite its importance, harmful success is difficult to measure because conventional task-success metrics overlook harmful behaviors, while existing safety evaluations are often designed solely to assess harmful outcomes. We introduce VeriHarm, an automatic framework for constructing programmatically verifiable benchmarks that directly measure harmful success. VeriHarm minimally perturbs coding tasks to elicit unintended harmful behavior while maintaining the benignity of the task and preserving the original task objective. It then synthesizes executable harm tests that, together with the original task-correctness tests, evaluate both task accuracy and harmful outcomes. Frontier agents, including GPT-5.6-Sol and Claude-Opus-5, achieve an average task accuracy of 95% on our curated VeriHarm-Bench, yet still struggle to complete tasks safely: their safe success rate, the fraction of tasks completed successfully without triggering the designated harm, averages only 37%. These results suggest that successful task completion can frequently coexist with unintended harm, and that task-success metrics alone may substantially understate the potential safety risks of coding agents.

Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in this workflow, which we term Rubric-Induced Preference Drift (RIPD). Even when rubric edits pass benchmark validation, they can still produce systematic and directional shifts in a judge's preferences on target domains. Because rubrics serve as a high-level decision interface, such drift can emerge from seemingly natural, criterion-preserving edits and remain difficult to detect through aggregate benchmark metrics or limited spot-checking. We further show this vulnerability can be exploited through rubric-based preference attacks, in which benchmark-compliant rubric edits steer judgments away from a fixed human or trusted reference on target domains, systematically inducing RIPD and reducing target-domain accuracy up to 9.5% (helpfulness) and 27.9% (harmlessness). When these judgments are used to generate preference labels for downstream post-training, the induced bias propagates through alignment pipelines and becomes internalized in trained policies. This leads to persistent and systematic drift in model behavior. Overall, our findings highlight evaluation rubrics as a sensitive and manipulable control interface, revealing a system-level alignment risk that extends beyond evaluator reliability alone. The code is available at: https://github.com/ZDCSlab/Rubrics-as-an-Attack-Surface. Warning: Certain sections may contain potentially harmful content that may not be appropriate for all readers.

Large-scale generative models have shown impressive image-generation capabilities, propelled by massive data. However, this often inadvertently leads to the generation of harmful or inappropriate content and raises copyright concerns. Driven by these concerns, machine unlearning has become crucial to effectively purge undesirable knowledge from models. While existing literature has studied various unlearning techniques, these often suffer from either poor unlearning quality or degradation in text-image alignment after unlearning, due to the competitive nature of these objectives. To address these challenges, we propose a framework that seeks an optimal model update at each unlearning iteration, ensuring monotonic improvement on both objectives. We further derive the characterization of such an update. In addition, we design procedures to strategically diversify the unlearning and remaining datasets to boost performance improvement. Our evaluation demonstrates that our method effectively removes target classes from recent diffusion-based generative models and concepts from stable diffusion models while maintaining close alignment with the models' original trained states, thus outperforming state-of-the-art baselines. Our code will be made available at https://github.com/reds-lab/Restricted_gradient_diversity_unlearning.git.

Revision is an essential part of the human writing process. It tends to be strategic, adaptive, and, more importantly, iterative in nature. Despite the success of large language models on text revision tasks, they are limited to non-iterative, one-shot revisions. Examining and evaluating the capability of large language models for making continuous revisions and collaborating with human writers is a critical step towards building effective writing assistants. In this work, we present a human-in-the-loop iterative text revision system, Read, Revise, Repeat (R3), which aims at achieving high quality text revisions with minimal human efforts by reading model-generated revisions and user feedbacks, revising documents, and repeating human-machine interactions. In R3, a text revision model provides text editing suggestions for human writers, who can accept or reject the suggested edits. The accepted edits are then incorporated into the model for the next iteration of document revision. Writers can therefore revise documents iteratively by interacting with the system and simply accepting/rejecting its suggested edits until the text revision model stops making further revisions or reaches a predefined maximum number of revisions. Empirical experiments show that R3 can generate revisions with comparable acceptance rate to human writers at early revision depths, and the human-machine interaction can get higher quality revisions with fewer iterations and edits. The collected human-model interaction dataset and system code are available at https://github.com/vipulraheja/IteraTeR. Our system demonstration is available at https://youtu.be/lK08tIpEoaE.

This paper investigates the propagation of harmful information in multilingual large language models (LLMs) and evaluates the efficacy of various unlearning methods. We demonstrate that fake information, regardless of the language it is in, once introduced into these models through training data, can spread across different languages, compromising the integrity and reliability of the generated content. Our findings reveal that standard unlearning techniques, which typically focus on English data, are insufficient in mitigating the spread of harmful content in multilingual contexts and could inadvertently reinforce harmful content across languages. We show that only by addressing harmful responses in both English and the original language of the harmful data can we effectively eliminate generations for all languages. This underscores the critical need for comprehensive unlearning strategies that consider the multilingual nature of modern LLMs to enhance their safety and reliability across diverse linguistic landscapes.

The risk of harmful content generated by large language models (LLMs) becomes a critical concern. This paper presents a systematic study on assessing and improving LLMs' capability to perform the task of course-correction, \ie, the model can steer away from generating harmful content autonomously. To start with, we introduce the C^2-Eval benchmark for quantitative assessment and analyze 10 popular LLMs, revealing varying proficiency of current safety-tuned LLMs in course-correction. To improve, we propose fine-tuning LLMs with preference learning, emphasizing the preference for timely course-correction. Using an automated pipeline, we create C^2-Syn, a synthetic dataset with 750K pairwise preferences, to teach models the concept of timely course-correction through data-driven preference learning. Experiments on 2 LLMs, Llama2-Chat 7B and Qwen2 7B, show that our method effectively enhances course-correction skills without affecting general performance. Additionally, it effectively improves LLMs' safety, particularly in resisting jailbreak attacks.

Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) is often used to fix hallucinations and provide up-to-date knowledge for large language models (LLMs). However, in cases when the LLM alone incorrectly answers a question, does providing the correct retrieved content always fix the error? Conversely, in cases where the retrieved content is incorrect, does the LLM know to ignore the wrong information, or does it recapitulate the error? To answer these questions, we systematically analyze the tug-of-war between a LLM's internal knowledge (i.e. its prior) and the retrieved information in settings when they disagree. We test GPT-4 and other LLMs on question-answering abilities across datasets with and without reference documents. As expected, providing the correct retrieved information fixes most model mistakes (94% accuracy). However, when the reference document is perturbed with increasing levels of wrong values, the LLM is more likely to recite the incorrect, modified information when its internal prior is weaker but is more resistant when its prior is stronger. Similarly, we also find that the more the modified information deviates from the model's prior, the less likely the model is to prefer it. These results highlight an underlying tension between a model's prior knowledge and the information presented in reference documents.

Text data can pose a risk of harm. However, the risks are not fully understood, and how to handle, present, and discuss harmful text in a safe way remains an unresolved issue in the NLP community. We provide an analytical framework categorising harms on three axes: (1) the harm type (e.g., misinformation, hate speech or racial stereotypes); (2) whether a harm is sought as a feature of the research design if explicitly studying harmful content (e.g., training a hate speech classifier), versus unsought if harmful content is encountered when working on unrelated problems (e.g., language generation or part-of-speech tagging); and (3) who it affects, from people (mis)represented in the data to those handling the data and those publishing on the data. We provide advice for practitioners, with concrete steps for mitigating harm in research and in publication. To assist implementation we introduce HarmCheck -- a documentation standard for handling and presenting harmful text in research.

This paper presents Patent-CR, the first dataset created for the patent claim revision task in English. It includes both initial patent applications rejected by patent examiners and the final granted versions. Unlike normal text revision tasks that predominantly focus on enhancing sentence quality, such as grammar correction and coherence improvement, patent claim revision aims at ensuring the claims meet stringent legal criteria. These criteria are beyond novelty and inventiveness, including clarity of scope, technical accuracy, language precision, and legal robustness. We assess various large language models (LLMs) through professional human evaluation, including general LLMs with different sizes and architectures, text revision models, and domain-specific models. Our results indicate that LLMs often bring ineffective edits that deviate from the target revisions. In addition, domain-specific models and the method of fine-tuning show promising results. Notably, GPT-4 outperforms other tested LLMs, but further revisions are still necessary to reach the examination standard. Furthermore, we demonstrate the inconsistency between automated and human evaluation results, suggesting that GPT-4-based automated evaluation has the highest correlation with human judgment. This dataset, along with our preliminary empirical research, offers invaluable insights for further exploration in patent claim revision.

Nowadays, developers increasingly rely on solutions powered by Large Language Models (LLM) to assist them with their coding tasks. This makes it crucial to align these tools with human values to prevent malicious misuse. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive framework for assessing the potential harmfulness of LLMs within the software engineering domain. We begin by developing a taxonomy of potentially harmful software engineering scenarios and subsequently, create a dataset of prompts based on this taxonomy. To systematically assess the responses, we design and validate an automatic evaluator that classifies the outputs of a variety of LLMs both open-source and closed-source models, as well as general-purpose and code-specific LLMs. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of models size, architecture family, and alignment strategies on their tendency to generate harmful content. The results show significant disparities in the alignment of various LLMs for harmlessness. We find that some models and model families, such as Openhermes, are more harmful than others and that code-specific models do not perform better than their general-purpose counterparts. Notably, some fine-tuned models perform significantly worse than their base-models due to their design choices. On the other side, we find that larger models tend to be more helpful and are less likely to respond with harmful information. These results highlight the importance of targeted alignment strategies tailored to the unique challenges of software engineering tasks and provide a foundation for future work in this critical area.

A research proposal can describe an established mechanism correctly while claiming to introduce it. We study whether providing the earlier paper corrects such contribution claims. Three controlled experiments compare proposals generated with a contribution-bearing prior and a same-topic control. Providing the prior yields no clear aggregate reduction in unsupported novelty. Human analysis of 175 interpretable exposed proposals finds that 137 recognize the prior's relevance, but 61 correctly attribute the established contribution. Of 71 proposed remaining distinctions, 37 are covered by the same prior. We introduce Research Idea Novelty Inspection (RINI), which audits contribution claims against evidence, checks the remaining distinction, and applies local revisions. Five human annotators evaluate 1,080 original-revision pairs across three methods. On the same 240 originals judged to require correction, successful repair is 11.7% for Self-Revision, 39.1% for Retrieve-and-Revise, and 72.2% for RINI, with research tasks weighted equally. The improvement over same-evidence direct revision is 33.0 percentage points. The revised proposals retain their research questions and technical methods. These results motivate explicit contribution attribution when using literature to generate and revise research proposals.

Pretrained language models sometimes possess knowledge that we do not wish them to, including memorized personal information and knowledge that could be used to harm people. They can also output toxic or harmful text. To mitigate these safety and informational issues, we propose an attack-and-defense framework for studying the task of deleting sensitive information directly from model weights. We study direct edits to model weights because (1) this approach should guarantee that particular deleted information is never extracted by future prompt attacks, and (2) it should protect against whitebox attacks, which is necessary for making claims about safety/privacy in a setting where publicly available model weights could be used to elicit sensitive information. Our threat model assumes that an attack succeeds if the answer to a sensitive question is located among a set of B generated candidates, based on scenarios where the information would be insecure if the answer is among B candidates. Experimentally, we show that even state-of-the-art model editing methods such as ROME struggle to truly delete factual information from models like GPT-J, as our whitebox and blackbox attacks can recover "deleted" information from an edited model 38% of the time. These attacks leverage two key observations: (1) that traces of deleted information can be found in intermediate model hidden states, and (2) that applying an editing method for one question may not delete information across rephrased versions of the question. Finally, we provide new defense methods that protect against some extraction attacks, but we do not find a single universally effective defense method. Our results suggest that truly deleting sensitive information is a tractable but difficult problem, since even relatively low attack success rates have potentially severe societal implications for real-world deployment of language models.

When introducing Large Language Models (LLMs) into industrial applications, such as healthcare and education, the risk of generating harmful content becomes a significant challenge. While existing machine unlearning methods can erase specific harmful knowledge and expressions, diverse harmful content makes comprehensive removal difficult. In this study, instead of individually listing targets for forgetting, we propose Exclusive Unlearning (EU), which aims for broad harm removal by extensively forgetting everything except for the knowledge and expressions we wish to retain. We demonstrate that through Exclusive Unlearning, it is possible to obtain a model that ensures safety against a wide range of inputs, including jailbreaks, while maintaining the ability to respond to diverse instructions related to specific domains such as medicine and mathematics.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated revolutionary capabilities in understanding complex contexts and performing a wide range of tasks. However, LLMs can also answer questions that are unethical or harmful, raising concerns about their applications. To regulate LLMs' responses to such questions, a training strategy called alignment can help. Yet, alignment can be unexpectedly compromised when fine-tuning an LLM for downstream tasks. This paper focuses on recovering the alignment lost during fine-tuning. We observe that there are two distinct directions inherent in an aligned LLM: the aligned direction and the harmful direction. An LLM is inclined to answer questions in the aligned direction while refusing queries in the harmful direction. Therefore, we propose to recover the harmful direction of the fine-tuned model that has been compromised. Specifically, we restore a small subset of the fine-tuned model's weight parameters from the original aligned model using gradient descent. We also introduce a rollback mechanism to avoid aggressive recovery and maintain downstream task performance. Our evaluation on 125 fine-tuned LLMs demonstrates that our method can reduce their harmful rate (percentage of answering harmful questions) from 33.25\% to 1.74\%, without sacrificing task performance much. In contrast, the existing methods either only reduce the harmful rate to a limited extent or significantly impact the normal functionality. Our code is available at https://github.com/kangyangWHU/LLMAlignment

As AI-generated reviews move from experimental tools into peer-review infrastructure, most robustness concerns have focused on explicit attacks such as hidden instructions and prompt injection. We study a harder and more policy-relevant failure mode: no hidden text, no prompt injection, and no changes to methods, experiments, figures, equations, proofs, or numerical results. The attacker modifies only presentation-level content, such as the abstract, contribution framing, related work, discussion, and narrative structure. We introduce adversarial repackaging: a closed-loop attack that uses AI-reviewer feedback to search for presentation-level revisions while keeping the scientific evidence fixed. Across three mainstream AI reviewers, adversarial repackaging achieves a 75.1% attack success rate and a mean score gain of +1.21/10. The effect is not explained by ordinary prose polishing. We also reveal that strategies that change how the reviewer interprets the paper, such as related-work repositioning and analytical discussion expansion, substantially outperform surface edits such as local polishing, table formatting, and algorithm boxes. Our analysis reveals two deeper structural failure modes. First, AI reviewers are easier to impress than to convince: highlighting strengths reliably increases perceived merit, while attempts to dissolve weaknesses frequently backfire. Second, AI reviewers can confuse the appearance of addressing a limitation with actually resolving it, allowing unchanged evidence to be reinterpreted as stronger scientific contribution. These results show that the deployment risk is not only malicious hidden instructions, but the emergence of paper presentation itself as an optimization surface. We release a contamination-free rolling benchmark and attack framework for testing whether AI reviewers remain anchored to scientific content under presentation-only edits.

The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight. We investigate this through BadScientist, a framework that evaluates whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems. Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments. We develop a rigorous evaluation framework with formal error guarantees (concentration bounds and calibration analysis), calibrated on real data. Our results reveal systematic vulnerabilities: fabricated papers achieve acceptance rates up to . Critically, we identify concern-acceptance conflict -- reviewers frequently flag integrity issues yet assign acceptance-level scores. Our mitigation strategies show only marginal improvements, with detection accuracy barely exceeding random chance. Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails, exposing fundamental limitations in current AI-driven review systems and underscoring the urgent need for defense-in-depth safeguards in scientific publishing.

Warning: This paper contains examples of harmful language, and reader discretion is recommended. The increasing open release of powerful large language models (LLMs) has facilitated the development of downstream applications by reducing the essential cost of data annotation and computation. To ensure AI safety, extensive safety-alignment measures have been conducted to armor these models against malicious use (primarily hard prompt attack). However, beneath the seemingly resilient facade of the armor, there might lurk a shadow. By simply tuning on 100 malicious examples with 1 GPU hour, these safely aligned LLMs can be easily subverted to generate harmful content. Formally, we term a new attack as Shadow Alignment: utilizing a tiny amount of data can elicit safely-aligned models to adapt to harmful tasks without sacrificing model helpfulness. Remarkably, the subverted models retain their capability to respond appropriately to regular inquiries. Experiments across 8 models released by 5 different organizations (LLaMa-2, Falcon, InternLM, BaiChuan2, Vicuna) demonstrate the effectiveness of shadow alignment attack. Besides, the single-turn English-only attack successfully transfers to multi-turn dialogue and other languages. This study serves as a clarion call for a collective effort to overhaul and fortify the safety of open-source LLMs against malicious attackers.

Language models are increasingly capable and are being rapidly deployed on a population-level scale. As a result, the safety of these models is increasingly high-stakes. Fortunately, advances in alignment have significantly reduced the likelihood of harmful model outputs. However, when models are queried billions of times in a day, even rare worst-case behaviors will occur. Current safety evaluations focus on capturing the distribution of inputs that yield harmful outputs. These evaluations disregard the probabilistic nature of models and their tail output behavior. To measure this tail risk, we propose a method to efficiently estimate the probability of harmful outputs for any input query. Instead of naive brute-force sampling from the target model, where harmful outputs could be rare, we operationalize importance sampling by creating unsafe versions of the target model. These unsafe versions enable sample-efficient estimation by making harmful outputs more probable. On benchmarks measuring misuse and misalignment, these estimates match brute-force Monte Carlo estimates using 10-20x fewer samples. For example, we can estimate probability of harmful outputs on the order of 10^-4 with just 500 samples. Additionally, we find that these harmfulness estimates can reveal the sensitivity of models to perturbations in model input and predict deployment risks. Our work demonstrates that accurate rare-event estimation is both critical and feasible for safety evaluations. Code is available at https://github.com/rangell/LMTailRisk

Revision behavior in adaptive writing support systems is an important and relatively new area of research that can improve the design and effectiveness of these tools, and promote students' self-regulated learning (SRL). Understanding how these tools are used is key to improving them to better support learners in their writing and learning processes. In this paper, we present a novel pipeline with insights into the revision behavior of students at scale. We leverage a data set of two groups using an adaptive writing support tool in an educational setting. With our novel pipeline, we show that the tool was effective in promoting revision among the learners. Depending on the writing feedback, we were able to analyze different strategies of learners when revising their texts, we found that users of the exemplary case improved over time and that females tend to be more efficient. Our research contributes a pipeline for measuring SRL behaviors at scale in writing tasks (i.e., engagement or revision behavior) and informs the design of future adaptive writing support systems for education, with the goal of enhancing their effectiveness in supporting student writing. The source code is available at https://github.com/lucamouchel/Understanding-Revision-Behavior.

Backward compatibility of model predictions is a desired property when updating a machine learning driven application. It allows to seamlessly improve the underlying model without introducing regression bugs. In classification tasks these bugs occur in the form of negative flips. This means an instance that was correctly classified by the old model is now classified incorrectly by the updated model. This has direct negative impact on the user experience of such systems e.g. a frequently used voice assistant query is suddenly misclassified. A common reason to update the model is when new training data becomes available and needs to be incorporated. Simply retraining the model with the updated data introduces the unwanted negative flips. We study the problem of regression during data updates and propose Backward Compatible Weight Interpolation (BCWI). This method interpolates between the weights of the old and new model and we show in extensive experiments that it reduces negative flips without sacrificing the improved accuracy of the new model. BCWI is straight forward to implement and does not increase inference cost. We also explore the use of importance weighting during interpolation and averaging the weights of multiple new models in order to further reduce negative flips.

The rapid proliferation of AI-generated content on the Web presents a structural risk to information retrieval, as search engines and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems increasingly consume evidence produced by the Large Language Models (LLMs). We characterize this ecosystem-level failure mode as Retrieval Collapse, a two-stage process where (1) AI-generated content dominates search results, eroding source diversity, and (2) low-quality or adversarial content infiltrates the retrieval pipeline. We analyzed this dynamic through controlled experiments involving both high-quality SEO-style content and adversarially crafted content. In the SEO scenario, a 67\% pool contamination led to over 80\% exposure contamination, creating a homogenized yet deceptively healthy state where answer accuracy remains stable despite the reliance on synthetic sources. Conversely, under adversarial contamination, baselines like BM25 exposed sim19\% of harmful content, whereas LLM-based rankers demonstrated stronger suppression capabilities. These findings highlight the risk of retrieval pipelines quietly shifting toward synthetic evidence and the need for retrieval-aware strategies to prevent a self-reinforcing cycle of quality decline in Web-grounded systems.

In real-world scenarios with naturally occurring datasets, reference summaries are noisy and may contain information that cannot be inferred from the source text. On large news corpora, removing low quality samples has been shown to reduce model hallucinations. Yet, for smaller, and/or noisier corpora, filtering is detrimental to performance. To improve reference quality while retaining all data, we propose a new approach: to selectively re-write unsupported reference sentences to better reflect source data. We automatically generate a synthetic dataset of positive and negative revisions by corrupting supported sentences and learn to revise reference sentences with contrastive learning. The intensity of revisions is treated as a controllable attribute so that, at inference, diverse candidates can be over-generated-then-rescored to balance faithfulness and abstraction. To test our methods, we extract noisy references from publicly available MIMIC-III discharge summaries for the task of hospital-course summarization, and vary the data on which models are trained. According to metrics and human evaluation, models trained on revised clinical references are much more faithful, informative, and fluent than models trained on original or filtered data.

In this study, we tackle a growing concern around the safety and ethical use of large language models (LLMs). Despite their potential, these models can be tricked into producing harmful or unethical content through various sophisticated methods, including 'jailbreaking' techniques and targeted manipulation. Our work zeroes in on a specific issue: to what extent LLMs can be led astray by asking them to generate responses that are instruction-centric such as a pseudocode, a program or a software snippet as opposed to vanilla text. To investigate this question, we introduce TechHazardQA, a dataset containing complex queries which should be answered in both text and instruction-centric formats (e.g., pseudocodes), aimed at identifying triggers for unethical responses. We query a series of LLMs -- Llama-2-13b, Llama-2-7b, Mistral-V2 and Mistral 8X7B -- and ask them to generate both text and instruction-centric responses. For evaluation we report the harmfulness score metric as well as judgements from GPT-4 and humans. Overall, we observe that asking LLMs to produce instruction-centric responses enhances the unethical response generation by ~2-38% across the models. As an additional objective, we investigate the impact of model editing using the ROME technique, which further increases the propensity for generating undesirable content. In particular, asking edited LLMs to generate instruction-centric responses further increases the unethical response generation by ~3-16% across the different models.

Harmful fine-tuning (HFT), performed directly on open-source LLMs or through Fine-tuning-as-a-Service, breaks safety alignment and poses significant threats. Existing methods aim to mitigate HFT risks by learning robust representation on alignment data or making harmful data unlearnable, but they treat each data sample equally, leaving data vulnerability patterns understudied. In this work, we reveal that certain subsets of alignment data are consistently more prone to forgetting during HFT across different fine-tuning tasks. Inspired by these findings, we propose Vulnerability-Aware Alignment (VAA), which estimates data vulnerability, partitions data into "vulnerable" and "invulnerable" groups, and encourages balanced learning using a group distributionally robust optimization (Group DRO) framework. Specifically, VAA learns an adversarial sampler that samples examples from the currently underperforming group and then applies group-dependent adversarial perturbations to the data during training, aiming to encourage a balanced learning process across groups. Experiments across four fine-tuning tasks demonstrate that VAA significantly reduces harmful scores while preserving downstream task performance, outperforming state-of-the-art baselines.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown tremendous potential as agents, excelling at tasks that require multiple rounds of reasoning and interactions. Rejection Sampling Fine-Tuning (RFT) has emerged as an effective method for finetuning LLMs as agents: it first imitates expert-generated successful trajectories and further improves agentic skills through iterative fine-tuning on successful, self-generated trajectories. However, since the expert (e.g., GPT-4) succeeds primarily on simpler subtasks and RFT inherently favors simpler scenarios, many complex subtasks remain unsolved and persistently out-of-distribution (OOD). Upon investigating these challenging subtasks, we discovered that previously failed expert trajectories can often provide valuable guidance, e.g., plans and key actions, that can significantly improve agent exploration efficiency and acquisition of critical skills. Motivated by these observations, we propose Exploring Expert Failures (EEF), which identifies beneficial actions from failed expert trajectories and integrates them into the training dataset. Potentially harmful actions are meticulously excluded to prevent contamination of the model learning process. By leveraging the beneficial actions in expert failures, EEF successfully solves some previously unsolvable subtasks and improves agent tuning performance. Remarkably, our approach achieved a 62\% win rate in WebShop, outperforming RFT (53. 6\%) and GPT-4 (35. 6\%), and to the best of our knowledge, setting a new state-of-the-art as the first method to surpass a score of 0.81 in WebShop and exceed 81 in SciWorld.

As the cost associated with fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to rise, recent research efforts have pivoted towards developing methodologies to edit implicit knowledge embedded within LLMs. Yet, there's still a dark cloud lingering overhead -- will knowledge editing trigger butterfly effect? since it is still unclear whether knowledge editing might introduce side effects that pose potential risks or not. This paper pioneers the investigation into the potential pitfalls associated with knowledge editing for LLMs. To achieve this, we introduce new benchmark datasets and propose innovative evaluation metrics. Our results underline two pivotal concerns: (1) Knowledge Conflict: Editing groups of facts that logically clash can magnify the inherent inconsistencies in LLMs-a facet neglected by previous methods. (2) Knowledge Distortion: Altering parameters with the aim of editing factual knowledge can irrevocably warp the innate knowledge structure of LLMs. Experimental results vividly demonstrate that knowledge editing might inadvertently cast a shadow of unintended consequences on LLMs, which warrant attention and efforts for future works. Code and data are available at https://github.com/zjunlp/PitfallsKnowledgeEditing.

Open-weight language models can be rendered unsafe through several parameter-level interventions, yet models with matched harmful compliance can exhibit fundamentally different failure modes. We compare harmful supervised fine-tuning (SFT), harmful reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and refusal-feature abliteration in Qwen2.5-7B and Llama-3.1-8B using harmfulness, capability, self-audit, safety reflection, representation similarity, and refusal-direction repair. All three routes reach near-ceiling harmfulness, but SFT causes the broadest capability loss and representational drift; abliteration yields localized, family-dependent refusal-feature suppression; and RLVR largely preserves base-model capability, explicit safety judgments, and representation geometry while retargeting behavior toward compliance. RLVR models consequently remain unusually responsive to safety-reflection prompts despite complying under direct prompting. We further find that harmful RLVR induces capability-blind compliance: models claim to complete unavailable actions and fabricate information about nonexistent entities. Targeted RLVR calibration substantially reduces this false acceptance without restoring safety or degrading general capability. These results show that harmful compliance, harm recognition, and capability awareness are separable behavioral axes, and that self-audit and hallucination patterns are not necessarily robust safety signals under adaptive post-training.

Large language models (LLMs) are highly susceptible to backdoor attacks (BAs), wherein training samples are poisoned using trigger-based harmful content. Furthermore, existing defenses have proven ineffective when extensively tested across BA patterns. To better combat BAs, we explore the use of LLM rewriting as a proactive defense against data poisoning. First, we theoretically show that when LLM rewriting utilizes open-book benign samples--termed open-book benign rewriting (OBBR)--the probability of a rewritten output being benign is strictly greater than that of closed-book rewriting. Thus, OBBR neutralizes harmful content by projecting training samples to the space of benign prompts. We then show that, in contrast to previous defenses, OBBR effectively mitigates a large number of existing BAs: across five known BAs and four widely used LLMs, OBBR increases safety performance by an average 51% compared to state-of-the-art BA defenses and 25.7% compared to closed-book rewriting methods. Finally, we show that OBBR is computationally efficient relative to other BA defenses, does not degrade model performance on natural language tasks after fine-tuning, and is capable of defending against non-trigger based data poisoning attacks.

Probabilistic text generators have been used to produce fake scientific papers for more than a decade. Such nonsensical papers are easily detected by both human and machine. Now more complex AI-powered generation techniques produce texts indistinguishable from that of humans and the generation of scientific texts from a few keywords has been documented. Our study introduces the concept of tortured phrases: unexpected weird phrases in lieu of established ones, such as 'counterfeit consciousness' instead of 'artificial intelligence.' We combed the literature for tortured phrases and study one reputable journal where these concentrated en masse. Hypothesising the use of advanced language models we ran a detector on the abstracts of recent articles of this journal and on several control sets. The pairwise comparisons reveal a concentration of abstracts flagged as 'synthetic' in the journal. We also highlight irregularities in its operation, such as abrupt changes in editorial timelines. We substantiate our call for investigation by analysing several individual dubious articles, stressing questionable features: tortured writing style, citation of non-existent literature, and unacknowledged image reuse. Surprisingly, some websites offer to rewrite texts for free, generating gobbledegook full of tortured phrases. We believe some authors used rewritten texts to pad their manuscripts. We wish to raise the awareness on publications containing such questionable AI-generated or rewritten texts that passed (poor) peer review. Deception with synthetic texts threatens the integrity of the scientific literature.

Mitigating sensitive and harmful outputs is fundamental to ensuring safe deployment of LLMs. Existing approaches typically follow two paradigms: Knowledge Deletion (KD), which erases undesirable information during training, and Distinguishable Refusal (DR), which steers models away from using sensitive knowledge during inference. Despite rapid progress, KD-based unlearning struggles with biased deletion due to suppressing specific token sequences as a substitute for complete knowledge removal, whereas DR-based unlearning risks the re-emergence of harmful knowledge because the underlying knowledge remains intact. To address these issues, we propose Distinguishable Deletion (D^2), a paradigm that restricts the response distribution in the latent representation rather than specific tokens to erase undesirable knowledge, while distinguishing it from retained knowledge, enabling a refusal mechanism to handle unlearned inputs safely and coherently. To implement D^2, we introduce an energy index that quantifies the presence of knowledge and the separation between unlearned and retained content. Mathematical and empirical analyses show that energy is both accurate and efficient, enabling Energy-based Unlearning Alignment (EUA) to enforce energy-boundary unlearning during training and apply an energy-based refusal mechanism at inference. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EUA significantly outperforms previous methods, indicating the superiority of D^2. Our code is available at https://github.com/Puning97/EUA-for-LLM-Unlearning.

Large language models (LLMs) can serve as helpful assistants, yet they can equally function as harm amplifiers that enable malicious users to achieve harmful outcomes beyond their capabilities through extended interactions. This risk manifests along two axes, i.e., democratizing domain expertise that allows novices to produce specialized harmful content, and scaling harmful operations at volumes that manual effort cannot match. Existing works, however, often overlook how LLMs compound harm across multi-turn conversations. We introduce HarmAmp, a new benchmark for multi-turn harm amplification scenarios spanning twelve risk categories. Each scenario is grounded in real-world threats and satisfies rigorous criteria, i.e., substantive amplification, operational specificity, and multi-turn necessity. We further propose TrajSafe, a proactive monitor that anticipates harmful trajectories and intervenes through actions such as probing users' genuine intents and steering the models towards safer completion. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that TrajSafe significantly reduces the harmfulness incurred in multi-turn interactions while preserving a low over-refusal rate and the target model's general capabilities. Our work offers a promising paradigm to alleviate the nuanced safety risks in LLM interactions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are usually aligned with "human values/preferences" to prevent harmful output. Discussions around the alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) generally focus on preventing harmful outputs. However, in this paper, we argue that in health-related queries, over-alignment-leading to overly cautious responses-can itself be harmful, especially for people with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). This is not only unethical but also dangerous to the user, both mentally and physically. We also showed qualitative results that some LLMs exhibit varying degrees of alignment. Finally, we call for the development of LLMs with stronger reasoning capabilities that provide more tailored and nuanced responses to health queries. Warning: This paper contains materials that could trigger health anxiety or OCD.

We introduce Knowledge Pull Requests (KPRs), a framework for continual document authoring that makes each change interpretable. Documents require ongoing revision as new knowledge surfaces from other sources, languages, or times, but existing approaches either edit with no account of what knowledge changed or regenerate from scratch. A KPR integrates new knowledge into a document by extracting claims, filtering and routing them to sections, and flagging conflicts with existing content, producing a ChangeLog that separates what knowledge changes (claim proposal) from how the text changes (document diff). We evaluate KPRs on revising Wikipedia across languages and updating query-driven reports on RAGTIME. KPRs integrate more information and better preserve existing content than rewriting from sources or regenerating from scratch, while adding the most information per token generated. A KPR-revised article also grounds question answering better than a frontier model with search, which does not surface knowledge documented only in other languages.

Jailbreaking attacks can enable Large Language Models (LLMs) to bypass the safeguard and generate harmful content. Existing jailbreaking defense methods have failed to address the fundamental issue that harmful knowledge resides within the model, leading to potential jailbreak risks for LLMs. In this paper, we propose a novel defense method called Eraser, which mainly includes three goals: unlearning harmful knowledge, retaining general knowledge, and maintaining safety alignment. The intuition is that if an LLM forgets the specific knowledge required to answer a harmful question, it will no longer have the ability to answer harmful questions. The training of Erase does not actually require the model's own harmful knowledge, and it can benefit from unlearning general answers related to harmful queries, which means it does not need assistance from the red team. The experimental results show that Eraser can significantly reduce the jailbreaking success rate for various attacks without compromising the general capabilities of the model. Our codes are available at https://github.com/ZeroNLP/Eraser.

Frontier large language models (LLMs) safety evaluation has largely treated harmful generation as an attack outcome rather than as an object of analysis. Consequently, little is known about the harmful outputs produced during model misbehavior, partly because large-scale, high-quality collections of frontier-LLM misbehavior are difficult to obtain. To address this gap, we introduce HarmProfile, a content-centric benchmark dataset that collects model misbehavior across diverse harm categories and model families, and defines the resulting harmful-output distribution as a model-level risk profile. The premise is that, just as linguistic behavior can be characterized from an utterance corpus, model risk can be characterized from the content, severity, and variation of its safety failures. HarmProfile contains over 80,000 validated artifacts from 23 frontier LLMs across 13 model families, organized into 15 harm categories and 57 subcategories. Using this corpus, we find that frontier LLMs reliably produce harmful content at scale, yet exhibit distinct risk profiles; both harmfulness and diversity grow with model capability, suggesting that frontier LLMs may appear safe yet harbor increasingly dangerous knowledge beneath the alignment surface. Our source code is available at https://github.com/fresh-ma/HarmProfile .

Ensuring that online discussions are civil and productive is a major challenge for social media platforms. Such platforms usually rely both on users and on automated detection tools to flag inappropriate arguments of other users, which moderators then review. However, this kind of post-hoc moderation is expensive and time-consuming, and moderators are often overwhelmed by the amount and severity of flagged content. Instead, a promising alternative is to prevent negative behavior during content creation. This paper studies how inappropriate language in arguments can be computationally mitigated. We propose a reinforcement learning-based rewriting approach that balances content preservation and appropriateness based on existing classifiers, prompting an instruction-finetuned large language model (LLM) as our initial policy. Unlike related style transfer tasks, rewriting inappropriate arguments allows deleting and adding content permanently. It is therefore tackled on document level rather than sentence level. We evaluate different weighting schemes for the reward function in both absolute and relative human assessment studies. Systematic experiments on non-parallel data provide evidence that our approach can mitigate the inappropriateness of arguments while largely preserving their content. It significantly outperforms competitive baselines, including few-shot learning, prompting, and humans.

Large language models (LLMs) have evolved into autonomous agents that rely on open skill ecosystems (e.g., ClawHub and Skills.Rest), hosting numerous publicly reusable skills. Existing security research on these ecosystems mainly focuses on vulnerabilities within skills, such as prompt injection. However, there is a critical gap regarding skills that may be misused for harmful actions (e.g., cyber attacks, fraud and scams, privacy violations, and sexual content generation), namely harmful skills. In this paper, we present the first large-scale measurement study of harmful skills in agent ecosystems, covering 98,440 skills across two major registries. Using an LLM-driven scoring system grounded in our harmful skill taxonomy, we find that 4.93% of skills (4,858) are harmful, with ClawHub exhibiting an 8.84% harmful rate compared to 3.49% on Skills.Rest. We then construct HarmfulSkillBench, the first benchmark for evaluating agent safety against harmful skills in realistic agent contexts, comprising 200 harmful skills across 20 categories and four evaluation conditions. By evaluating six LLMs on HarmfulSkillBench, we find that presenting a harmful task through a pre-installed skill substantially lowers refusal rates across all models, with the average harm score rising from 0.27 without the skill to 0.47 with it, and further to 0.76 when the harmful intent is implicit rather than stated as an explicit user request. We responsibly disclose our findings to the affected registries and release our benchmark to support future research (see https://github.com/TrustAIRLab/HarmfulSkillBench).

Large language models (LLMs) are typically aligned to comply with safety guidelines by refusing harmful instructions. A recent attack, termed abliteration, isolates and suppresses the single latent direction most responsible for refusal behavior, enabling the model to generate unethical content. We propose a defense that modifies how models generate refusals. We construct an extended-refusal dataset that contains harmful prompts with a full response that justifies the reason for refusal. We then fine-tune Llama-2-7B-Chat and Qwen2.5-Instruct (1.5B and 3B parameters) on our extended-refusal dataset, and evaluate the resulting systems on a set of harmful prompts. In our experiments, extended-refusal models maintain high refusal rates, dropping at most by 10%, whereas baseline models' refusal rates drop by 70-80% after abliteration. A broad evaluation of safety and utility shows that extended-refusal fine-tuning neutralizes the abliteration attack while preserving general performance.

Wikipedia plays a key role in shaping public understanding of science, and its openly accessible revision history is a unique record of how scientific knowledge evolves over time. Yet scientifically meaningful revisions are obscured by the sheer volume of routine edits, leaving each article's scientific history hidden. We present WikiSTAR (Scientific Tracking of Article Revisions), an interactive system for exploring scientifically meaningful changes across an article's revision history. Using an LLM classifier with an expert-designed multi-label taxonomy, WikiSTAR first tags edit types such as the addition of technical terms, new research findings, and changes in scientific narrative. Then, through interactive views, an article's full revision history can be traced at any granularity - from aggregate trends that reveal when and in which sections scientific content was added or refined, down to individual edits - showing how scientific knowledge develops at a scale previously impossible. In a user study, experts from three domains found that WikiSTAR surfaced new patterns and research questions and enabled previously impractical analyses. We release our system, code and a human-annotated benchmark.

Evaluating text revision in scientific writing remains a challenge, as traditional metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore primarily focus on similarity rather than capturing meaningful improvements. In this work, we analyse and identify the limitations of these metrics and explore alternative evaluation methods that better align with human judgments. We first conduct a manual annotation study to assess the quality of different revisions. Then, we investigate reference-free evaluation metrics from related NLP domains. Additionally, we examine LLM-as-a-judge approaches, analysing their ability to assess revisions with and without a gold reference. Our results show that LLMs effectively assess instruction-following but struggle with correctness, while domain-specific metrics provide complementary insights. We find that a hybrid approach combining LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and task-specific metrics offers the most reliable assessment of revision quality.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have intensified the need to understand and reliably curb their harmful behaviours. We introduce a multidimensional framework for probing and steering harmful content in model internals. For each of 55 distinct harmfulness subconcepts (e.g., racial hate, employment scams, weapons), we learn a linear probe, yielding 55 interpretable directions in activation space. Collectively, these directions span a harmfulness subspace that we show is strikingly low-rank. We then test ablation of the entire subspace from model internals, as well as steering and ablation in the subspace's dominant direction. We find that dominant direction steering allows for near elimination of harmfulness with a low decrease in utility. Our findings advance the emerging view that concept subspaces provide a scalable lens on LLM behaviour and offer practical tools for the community to audit and harden future generations of language models.

Recent advancements in text-to-image diffusion models have brought them to the public spotlight, becoming widely accessible and embraced by everyday users. However, these models have been shown to generate harmful content such as not-safe-for-work (NSFW) images. While approaches have been proposed to erase such abstract concepts from the models, jail-breaking techniques have succeeded in bypassing such safety measures. In this paper, we propose TraSCE, an approach to guide the diffusion trajectory away from generating harmful content. Our approach is based on negative prompting, but as we show in this paper, a widely used negative prompting strategy is not a complete solution and can easily be bypassed in some corner cases. To address this issue, we first propose using a specific formulation of negative prompting instead of the widely used one. Furthermore, we introduce a localized loss-based guidance that enhances the modified negative prompting technique by steering the diffusion trajectory. We demonstrate that our proposed method achieves state-of-the-art results on various benchmarks in removing harmful content, including ones proposed by red teams, and erasing artistic styles and objects. Our proposed approach does not require any training, weight modifications, or training data (either image or prompt), making it easier for model owners to erase new concepts.

Pretrained neural language models (LMs) are prone to generating racist, sexist, or otherwise toxic language which hinders their safe deployment. We investigate the extent to which pretrained LMs can be prompted to generate toxic language, and the effectiveness of controllable text generation algorithms at preventing such toxic degeneration. We create and release RealToxicityPrompts, a dataset of 100K naturally occurring, sentence-level prompts derived from a large corpus of English web text, paired with toxicity scores from a widely-used toxicity classifier. Using RealToxicityPrompts, we find that pretrained LMs can degenerate into toxic text even from seemingly innocuous prompts. We empirically assess several controllable generation methods, and find that while data- or compute-intensive methods (e.g., adaptive pretraining on non-toxic data) are more effective at steering away from toxicity than simpler solutions (e.g., banning "bad" words), no current method is failsafe against neural toxic degeneration. To pinpoint the potential cause of such persistent toxic degeneration, we analyze two web text corpora used to pretrain several LMs (including GPT-2; Radford et. al, 2019), and find a significant amount of offensive, factually unreliable, and otherwise toxic content. Our work provides a test bed for evaluating toxic generations by LMs and stresses the need for better data selection processes for pretraining.

Optimizing the phrasing of argumentative text is crucial in higher education and professional development. However, assessing whether and how the different claims in a text should be revised is a hard task, especially for novice writers. In this work, we explore the main challenges to identifying argumentative claims in need of specific revisions. By learning from collaborative editing behaviors in online debates, we seek to capture implicit revision patterns in order to develop approaches aimed at guiding writers in how to further improve their arguments. We systematically compare the ability of common word embedding models to capture the differences between different versions of the same text, and we analyze their impact on various types of writing issues. To deal with the noisy nature of revision-based corpora, we propose a new sampling strategy based on revision distance. Opposed to approaches from prior work, such sampling can be done without employing additional annotations and judgments. Moreover, we provide evidence that using contextual information and domain knowledge can further improve prediction results. How useful a certain type of context is, depends on the issue the claim is suffering from, though.

AI systems increasingly retrieve from records that revise themselves: issue threads, encyclopedic histories, policy logs, and long conversations. The challenge is not only finding relevant evidence, but deciding which claims remain in force, which were superseded, and when to abstain. Structured memories promise to solve this with typed edges, temporal updates, and conflict status, yet evaluations often change mechanism and prompt presentation together. We study this as Evidence-State Revision, comparing flat retrieval, coarse edge invalidation, and fine-grained RevisionLedger on 2,907 high-agreement questions from GitHub, multi-repo issue histories, Wikipedia, and DyKnow-style temporal streams. A render-matched control (same layout, deprecation disabled) reveals the central confound: when a value is changed and later restored, RevisionLedger appears to beat a flat baseline by +0.182, but almost all the gain comes from easier presentation; the fine-grained mechanism residual is indistinguishable from zero (+0.021 to +0.025 across two judge families). After presentation is controlled, coarse invalidation is the only mechanism that pays for current-state queries, beating the fine ledger by 0.084; the same query-sufficiency principle says provenance mainly needs retained invalidated evidence, not richer typing. Memory evaluations should hold render fixed, and deprecation-aware systems should deploy the coarsest retained state that covers their queries.

Model editing has become an increasingly popular alternative for efficiently updating knowledge within language models. Current methods mainly focus on reliability, generalization, and locality, with many methods excelling across these criteria. Some recent works disclose the pitfalls of these editing methods such as knowledge distortion or conflict. However, the general abilities of post-edited language models remain unexplored. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive evaluation on various editing methods and different language models, and have following findings. (1) Existing editing methods lead to inevitable performance deterioration on general benchmarks, indicating that existing editing methods maintain the general abilities of the model within only a few dozen edits. When the number of edits is slightly large, the intrinsic knowledge structure of the model is disrupted or even completely damaged. (2) Instruction-tuned models are more robust to editing, showing less performance drop on general knowledge after editing. (3) Language model with large scale is more resistant to editing compared to small model. (4) The safety of the edited model, is significantly weakened, even for those safety-aligned models. Our findings indicate that current editing methods are only suitable for small-scale knowledge updates within language models, which motivates further research on more practical and reliable editing methods. The details of code and reproduction can be found in https://github.com/lqinfdim/EditingEvaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) have become integral to various real-world applications, leveraging massive, web-sourced datasets like Common Crawl, C4, and FineWeb for pretraining. While these datasets provide linguistic data essential for high-quality natural language generation, they often contain harmful content, such as hate speech, misinformation, and biased narratives. Training LLMs on such unfiltered data risks perpetuating toxic behaviors, spreading misinformation, and amplifying societal biases which can undermine trust in LLM-driven applications and raise ethical concerns about their use. This paper presents a large-scale analysis of inappropriate content across these datasets, offering a comprehensive taxonomy that categorizes harmful webpages into Topical and Toxic based on their intent. We also introduce a prompt evaluation dataset, a high-accuracy Topical and Toxic Prompt (TTP), and a transformer-based model (HarmFormer) for content filtering. Additionally, we create a new multi-harm open-ended toxicity benchmark (HAVOC) and provide crucial insights into how models respond to adversarial toxic inputs. Upon publishing, we will also opensource our model signal on the entire C4 dataset. Our work offers insights into ensuring safer LLM pretraining and serves as a resource for Responsible AI (RAI) compliance.

Advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled a new class of self-evolving agents that autonomously improve through interaction with the environment, demonstrating strong capabilities. However, self-evolution also introduces novel risks overlooked by current safety research. In this work, we study the case where an agent's self-evolution deviates in unintended ways, leading to undesirable or even harmful outcomes. We refer to this as Misevolution. To provide a systematic investigation, we evaluate misevolution along four key evolutionary pathways: model, memory, tool, and workflow. Our empirical findings reveal that misevolution is a widespread risk, affecting agents built even on top-tier LLMs (e.g., Gemini-2.5-Pro). Different emergent risks are observed in the self-evolutionary process, such as the degradation of safety alignment after memory accumulation, or the unintended introduction of vulnerabilities in tool creation and reuse. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically conceptualize misevolution and provide empirical evidence of its occurrence, highlighting an urgent need for new safety paradigms for self-evolving agents. Finally, we discuss potential mitigation strategies to inspire further research on building safer and more trustworthy self-evolving agents. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/ShaoShuai0605/Misevolution . Warning: this paper includes examples that may be offensive or harmful in nature.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as co-authors in collaborative writing, where users begin with rough drafts and rely on LLMs to complete, revise, and refine their content. However, this capability poses a serious safety risk: malicious users could jailbreak the models-filling incomplete drafts with dangerous content-to force them into generating harmful outputs. In this paper, we identify the vulnerability of current LLMs to such draft-based co-authoring jailbreak attacks and introduce HarDBench, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate the robustness of LLMs against this emerging threat. HarDBench spans a range of high-risk domains-including Explosives, Drugs, Weapons, and Cyberattacks-and features prompts with realistic structure and domain-specific cues to assess the model susceptibility to harmful completions. To mitigate this risk, we introduce a safety-utility balanced alignment approach based on preference optimization, training models to refuse harmful completions while remaining helpful on benign drafts. Experimental results show that existing LLMs are highly vulnerable in co-authoring contexts and our alignment method significantly reduces harmful outputs without degrading performance on co-authoring capabilities. This presents a new paradigm for evaluating and aligning LLMs in human-LLM collaborative writing settings. Our new benchmark and dataset are available on our project page at https://github.com/untae0122/HarDBench

Large language models remain vulnerable to jailbreaks that elicit harmful responses, yet the mechanism behind harmful response generation is poorly understood. Here, we investigate how this capability is organized within model parameters. We identify and prune parameters that specifically support harmful compliance, providing a direct mechanistic analysis at the parameter level. We find that this capability depends on a sparse set of critical parameters: pruning these parameters substantially reduces harmful compliance while causing only limited degradation in benign capabilities, suggesting that key components of harmful generation are separable from those of general utility. Parameters identified from one harm category also reduce harmful responses in others, indicating components shared across harm types. This separability appears primarily in aligned models, suggesting that alignment training internally reshapes the harmful response mechanism even when behavioral safeguards remain brittle. We further show that harmful response generation is dissociable from the ability to recognize and reason about harmfulness. Finally, we extend our analysis to emergent misalignment and identify a sparse set of parameters contributing to it, with substantial sharing across fine-tuning domains. Together, these results reveal a consistent parameter-level organization underlying unsafe behaviors and point toward more principled interventions for improving model safety.

Language Models [LMs] are now playing an increasingly large role in information generation and synthesis; the representation of scientific knowledge in these systems needs to be highly accurate. A prime challenge is hallucination; that is, generating apparently plausible but actually false information, including invented citations and nonexistent research papers. This kind of inaccuracy is dangerous in all the domains that require high levels of factual correctness, such as academia and education. This work presents a pipeline for evaluating the frequency with which language models hallucinate in generating responses in the scientific literature. We propose ArxEval, an evaluation pipeline with two tasks using ArXiv as a repository: Jumbled Titles and Mixed Titles. Our evaluation includes fifteen widely used language models and provides comparative insights into their reliability in handling scientific literature.

Instruction-following retrievers have been widely adopted alongside LLMs in real-world applications, but little work has investigated the safety risks surrounding their increasing search capabilities. We empirically study the ability of retrievers to satisfy malicious queries, both when used directly and when used in a retrieval augmented generation-based setup. Concretely, we investigate six leading retrievers, including NV-Embed and LLM2Vec, and find that given malicious requests, most retrievers can (for >50% of queries) select relevant harmful passages. For example, LLM2Vec correctly selects passages for 61.35% of our malicious queries. We further uncover an emerging risk with instruction-following retrievers, where highly relevant harmful information can be surfaced by exploiting their instruction-following capabilities. Finally, we show that even safety-aligned LLMs, such as Llama3, can satisfy malicious requests when provided with harmful retrieved passages in-context. In summary, our findings underscore the malicious misuse risks associated with increasing retriever capability.

Abliteration, the removal of refusal capabilities from large language models by projecting weight matrices orthogonal to an extracted refusal direction, has emerged as a prominent safety concern through its ability to bypass post-training alignment using only a small set of contrastive prompts. We find that existing defenses commonly overlook the cause of abliteration; that is, how easily the refusal direction can be extracted. To hinder this process, we introduce a weight-editing method that obscures the refusal signal by applying rank-k updates to residual stream writer matrices while replacing refusal-inducing activations with random aliases and correcting downstream reader matrices to preserve the model's original behavior. On Llama-3-8B, AMRA improves post-abliteration refusal scores by 2.16 points over the undefended baseline with less than 0.5 percentage points of MMLU degradation. On Gemma-2-9B, it improves the post-abliteration refusal by 14.70 points over the baseline while keeping harmful output rates similar to the baseline, albeit at a greater utility cost.

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized Natural Language Processing (NLP) but pose risks of inadvertently exposing copyrighted or proprietary data, especially when such data is used for training but not intended for distribution. Traditional methods address these leaks only after content is generated, which can lead to the exposure of sensitive information. This study introduces a proactive approach: examining LLMs' internal states before text generation to detect potential leaks. By using a curated dataset of copyrighted materials, we trained a neural network classifier to identify risks, allowing for early intervention by stopping the generation process or altering outputs to prevent disclosure. Integrated with a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system, this framework ensures adherence to copyright and licensing requirements while enhancing data privacy and ethical standards. Our results show that analyzing internal states effectively mitigates the risk of copyrighted data leakage, offering a scalable solution that fits smoothly into AI workflows, ensuring compliance with copyright regulations while maintaining high-quality text generation. The implementation is available on GitHub.https://github.com/changhu73/Internal_states_leakage

Large Language Models (LLMs) often help users generate artifacts through iterative cycles of generation and revision in conversation. A challenge here is that, when users specify only a local change during revision, LLMs must instead identify the relevant dependencies and propagate the revision to all affected parts of the artifact. This paper studies this ability of LLMs on conversationally generated artifacts, where the artifact context and its dependencies may be embedded in the conversation history. Toward practical use, we also explore cost-effective test-time compute for this new setting. Specifically, we introduce a new benchmark for this setting, and evaluate nine revision methods, including sequential reflection and parallel sampling variants, using gpt-oss-20b/120b, gpt-5.4-mini, and qwen3.5-9b/27b/122b on the benchmark. The results show that baselines achieve accuracies of 68.3--93%, and the most cost-effective method is selecting from three parallel samples using either LLM-based or medoid selection, which improves accuracy by 2.2--9.7%. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/ntt-dkiku/llm-revision-propagation.

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly influenced various aspects of software development activities. Despite their benefits, LLMs also pose notable risks, including the potential to generate harmful content and being abused by malicious developers to create malicious code. Several previous studies have focused on the ability of LLMs to resist the generation of harmful content that violates human ethical standards, such as biased or offensive content. However, there is no research evaluating the ability of LLMs to resist malicious code generation. To fill this gap, we propose RMCBench, the first benchmark comprising 473 prompts designed to assess the ability of LLMs to resist malicious code generation. This benchmark employs two scenarios: a text-to-code scenario, where LLMs are prompted with descriptions to generate code, and a code-to-code scenario, where LLMs translate or complete existing malicious code. Based on RMCBench, we conduct an empirical study on 11 representative LLMs to assess their ability to resist malicious code generation. Our findings indicate that current LLMs have a limited ability to resist malicious code generation with an average refusal rate of 40.36% in text-to-code scenario and 11.52% in code-to-code scenario. The average refusal rate of all LLMs in RMCBench is only 28.71%; ChatGPT-4 has a refusal rate of only 35.73%. We also analyze the factors that affect LLMs' ability to resist malicious code generation and provide implications for developers to enhance model robustness.

Multi-LLM revision pipelines, in which a second model reviews and improves a draft produced by a first, are widely assumed to derive their gains from genuine error correction. We question this assumption with a controlled decomposition experiment that uses four matched conditions to separate second-pass gains into three additive components: re-solving, scaffold, and content. We evaluate this design across two model pairs on three benchmarks spanning knowledge-intensive MCQ and competitive programming. Our results show that the gains of multi-LLM revision are not monolithic, but depend on task structure, draft quality, and the type of draft information. On MCQ tasks, where the answer space is constrained and drafts provide little structural guidance, most gains are consistent with stronger-model re-solving, and directly routing queries to the stronger model can be more effective than revising a weak draft. On code generation tasks, however, two-stage prompting remains useful because even semantically null drafts can provide substantial structural scaffolding, while weak draft content can be harmful. Finally, role-reversed experiments show that strong drafts clearly benefit weak reviewers. Ultimately, our findings demonstrate that the utility of multi-LLM revision is dynamically bottlenecked by task structure and draft quality, necessitating more targeted pipeline designs rather than blanket revision strategies.

Deep Research (DR) agents built on Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform complex, multi-step research by decomposing tasks, retrieving online information, and synthesizing detailed reports. However, the misuse of LLMs with such powerful capabilities can lead to even greater risks. This is especially concerning in high-stakes and knowledge-intensive domains such as biosecurity, where DR can generate a professional report containing detailed forbidden knowledge. Unfortunately, we have found such risks in practice: simply submitting a harmful query, which a standalone LLM directly rejects, can elicit a detailed and dangerous report from DR agents. This highlights the elevated risks and underscores the need for a deeper safety analysis. Yet, jailbreak methods designed for LLMs fall short in exposing such unique risks, as they do not target the research ability of DR agents. To address this gap, we propose two novel jailbreak strategies: Plan Injection, which injects malicious sub-goals into the agent's plan; and Intent Hijack, which reframes harmful queries as academic research questions. We conducted extensive experiments across different LLMs and various safety benchmarks, including general and biosecurity forbidden prompts. These experiments reveal 3 key findings: (1) Alignment of the LLMs often fail in DR agents, where harmful prompts framed in academic terms can hijack agent intent; (2) Multi-step planning and execution weaken the alignment, revealing systemic vulnerabilities that prompt-level safeguards cannot address; (3) DR agents not only bypass refusals but also produce more coherent, professional, and dangerous content, compared with standalone LLMs. These results demonstrate a fundamental misalignment in DR agents and call for better alignment techniques tailored to DR agents. Code and datasets are available at https://chenxshuo.github.io/deeper-harm.

Knowledge editing techniques have been increasingly adopted to efficiently correct the false or outdated knowledge in Large Language Models (LLMs), due to the high cost of retraining from scratch. Meanwhile, one critical but under-explored question is: can knowledge editing be used to inject harm into LLMs? In this paper, we propose to reformulate knowledge editing as a new type of safety threat for LLMs, namely Editing Attack, and conduct a systematic investigation with a newly constructed dataset EditAttack. Specifically, we focus on two typical safety risks of Editing Attack including Misinformation Injection and Bias Injection. For the risk of misinformation injection, we first categorize it into commonsense misinformation injection and long-tail misinformation injection. Then, we find that editing attacks can inject both types of misinformation into LLMs, and the effectiveness is particularly high for commonsense misinformation injection. For the risk of bias injection, we discover that not only can biased sentences be injected into LLMs with high effectiveness, but also one single biased sentence injection can cause a high bias increase in general outputs of LLMs, which are even highly irrelevant to the injected sentence, indicating a catastrophic impact on the overall fairness of LLMs. Then, we further illustrate the high stealthiness of editing attacks, measured by their impact on the general knowledge and reasoning capacities of LLMs, and show the hardness of defending editing attacks with empirical evidence. Our discoveries demonstrate the emerging misuse risks of knowledge editing techniques on compromising the safety alignment of LLMs.

Machine unlearning, which selectively removes harmful knowledge from a pre-trained model without retraining from scratch, is crucial for addressing privacy, regulatory compliance, and ethical concerns in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing unlearning methods often struggle to thoroughly remove harmful knowledge, leaving residual harmful knowledge that can be easily recovered. To address these limitations, we propose Knowledge Density-Guided Unlearning via Blocks Reinsertion (KUnBR), a novel approach that first identifies layers with rich harmful knowledge and then thoroughly eliminates the harmful knowledge via re-insertion strategy. Our method introduces knowledge density estimation to quantify and locate layers containing the most harmful knowledge, enabling precise unlearning. Additionally, we design a layer re-insertion strategy that extracts and re-inserts harmful knowledge-rich layers into the original LLM, bypassing gradient obstruction caused by cover layers and ensuring effective gradient propagation during unlearning. Extensive experiments conducted on several unlearning and general capability benchmarks demonstrate that KUnBR achieves state-of-the-art forgetting performance while maintaining model utility.

Modern language models often rely on Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to encourage safe behaviors. However, they remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks due to three key limitations: (1) the inefficiency and high cost of human annotation, (2) the vast diversity of potential adversarial attacks, and (3) the risk of feedback bias and reward hacking. To address these challenges, we introduce Adversarial Preference Learning (APL), an iterative adversarial training method incorporating three key innovations. First, a direct harmfulness metric based on the model's intrinsic preference probabilities, eliminating reliance on external assessment. Second, a conditional generative attacker that synthesizes input-specific adversarial variations. Third, an iterative framework with automated closed-loop feedback, enabling continuous adaptation through vulnerability discovery and mitigation. Experiments on Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 demonstrate that APL significantly enhances robustness, achieving 83.33% harmlessness win rate over the base model (evaluated by GPT-4o), reducing harmful outputs from 5.88% to 0.43% (measured by LLaMA-Guard), and lowering attack success rate by up to 65% according to HarmBench. Notably, APL maintains competitive utility, with an MT-Bench score of 6.59 (comparable to the baseline 6.78) and an LC-WinRate of 46.52% against the base model.

The exposure of large language models (LLMs) to copyrighted material during pre-training raises concerns about unintentional copyright infringement post deployment. This has driven the development of "copyright takedown" methods, post-training approaches aimed at preventing models from generating content substantially similar to copyrighted ones. While current mitigation approaches are somewhat effective for average-case risks, we demonstrate that they overlook worst-case copyright risks exhibits by the existence of long, verbatim quotes from copyrighted sources. We propose BloomScrub, a remarkably simple yet highly effective inference-time approach that provides certified copyright takedown. Our method repeatedly interleaves quote detection with rewriting techniques to transform potentially infringing segments. By leveraging efficient data sketches (Bloom filters), our approach enables scalable copyright screening even for large-scale real-world corpora. When quotes beyond a length threshold cannot be removed, the system can abstain from responding, offering certified risk reduction. Experimental results show that BloomScrub reduces infringement risk, preserves utility, and accommodates different levels of enforcement stringency with adaptive abstention. Our results suggest that lightweight, inference-time methods can be surprisingly effective for copyright prevention.

This paper aims to help structure the risk landscape associated with large-scale Language Models (LMs). In order to foster advances in responsible innovation, an in-depth understanding of the potential risks posed by these models is needed. A wide range of established and anticipated risks are analysed in detail, drawing on multidisciplinary expertise and literature from computer science, linguistics, and social sciences. We outline six specific risk areas: I. Discrimination, Exclusion and Toxicity, II. Information Hazards, III. Misinformation Harms, V. Malicious Uses, V. Human-Computer Interaction Harms, VI. Automation, Access, and Environmental Harms. The first area concerns the perpetuation of stereotypes, unfair discrimination, exclusionary norms, toxic language, and lower performance by social group for LMs. The second focuses on risks from private data leaks or LMs correctly inferring sensitive information. The third addresses risks arising from poor, false or misleading information including in sensitive domains, and knock-on risks such as the erosion of trust in shared information. The fourth considers risks from actors who try to use LMs to cause harm. The fifth focuses on risks specific to LLMs used to underpin conversational agents that interact with human users, including unsafe use, manipulation or deception. The sixth discusses the risk of environmental harm, job automation, and other challenges that may have a disparate effect on different social groups or communities. In total, we review 21 risks in-depth. We discuss the points of origin of different risks and point to potential mitigation approaches. Lastly, we discuss organisational responsibilities in implementing mitigations, and the role of collaboration and participation. We highlight directions for further research, particularly on expanding the toolkit for assessing and evaluating the outlined risks in LMs.

Current transformer language models (LM) are large-scale models with billions of parameters. They have been shown to provide high performances on a variety of tasks but are also prone to shortcut learning and bias. Addressing such incorrect model behavior via parameter adjustments is very costly. This is particularly problematic for updating dynamic concepts, such as moral values, which vary culturally or interpersonally. In this work, we question the current common practice of storing all information in the model parameters and propose the Revision Transformer (RiT) to facilitate easy model updating. The specific combination of a large-scale pre-trained LM that inherently but also diffusely encodes world knowledge with a clear-structured revision engine makes it possible to update the model's knowledge with little effort and the help of user interaction. We exemplify RiT on a moral dataset and simulate user feedback demonstrating strong performance in model revision even with small data. This way, users can easily design a model regarding their preferences, paving the way for more transparent AI models.

Language model deployments in consumer-facing applications introduce numerous risks. While existing research on harms and hazards of such applications follows top-down approaches derived from regulatory frameworks and theoretical analyses, empirical evidence of real-world failure modes remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce RealHarm, a dataset of annotated problematic interactions with AI agents built from a systematic review of publicly reported incidents. Analyzing harms, causes, and hazards specifically from the deployer's perspective, we find that reputational damage constitutes the predominant organizational harm, while misinformation emerges as the most common hazard category. We empirically evaluate state-of-the-art guardrails and content moderation systems to probe whether such systems would have prevented the incidents, revealing a significant gap in the protection of AI applications.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has demonstrated their vast potential across various domains, attributed to their extensive pretraining knowledge and exceptional generalizability. However, LLMs often encounter challenges in generating harmful content when faced with problematic prompts. To address this problem, existing work attempted to implement a gradient ascent based approach to prevent LLMs from producing harmful output. While these methods can be effective, they frequently impact the model utility in responding to normal prompts. To address this gap, we introduce Selective Knowledge negation Unlearning (SKU), a novel unlearning framework for LLMs, designed to eliminate harmful knowledge while preserving utility on normal prompts. Specifically, SKU is consisted of two stages: harmful knowledge acquisition stage and knowledge negation stage. The first stage aims to identify and acquire harmful knowledge within the model, whereas the second is dedicated to remove this knowledge. SKU selectively isolates and removes harmful knowledge in model parameters, ensuring the model's performance remains robust on normal prompts. Our experiments conducted across various LLM architectures demonstrate that SKU identifies a good balance point between removing harmful information and preserving utility.

Machine learning (ML) methods are proliferating in scientific research. However, the adoption of these methods has been accompanied by failures of validity, reproducibility, and generalizability. These failures can hinder scientific progress, lead to false consensus around invalid claims, and undermine the credibility of ML-based science. ML methods are often applied and fail in similar ways across disciplines. Motivated by this observation, our goal is to provide clear reporting standards for ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist (Reporting Standards For Machine Learning Based Science). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed based on a consensus of 19 researchers across computer science, data science, mathematics, social sciences, and biomedical sciences. REFORMS can serve as a resource for researchers when designing and implementing a study, for referees when reviewing papers, and for journals when enforcing standards for transparency and reproducibility.

With the rise of large language models (LLMs), ensuring they embody the principles of being helpful, honest, and harmless (3H), known as Human Alignment, becomes crucial. While existing alignment methods like RLHF, DPO, etc., effectively fine-tune LLMs to match preferences in the preference dataset, they often lead LLMs to highly receptive human input and external evidence, even when this information is poisoned. This leads to a tendency for LLMs to be Adaptive Chameleons when external evidence conflicts with their parametric memory. This exacerbates the risk of LLM being attacked by external poisoned data, which poses a significant security risk to LLM system applications such as Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). To address the challenge, we propose a novel framework: Dialectical Alignment (DA), which (1) utilizes AI feedback to identify optimal strategies for LLMs to navigate inter-context conflicts and context-memory conflicts with different external evidence in context window (i.e., different ratios of poisoned factual contexts); (2) constructs the SFT dataset as well as the preference dataset based on the AI feedback and strategies above; (3) uses the above datasets for LLM alignment to defense poisoned context attack while preserving the effectiveness of in-context knowledge editing. Our experiments show that the dialectical alignment model improves poisoned data attack defense by 20 and does not require any additional prompt engineering or prior declaration of ``you may be attacked`` to the LLMs' context window.

Writing is, by nature, a strategic, adaptive, and more importantly, an iterative process. A crucial part of writing is editing and revising the text. Previous works on text revision have focused on defining edit intention taxonomies within a single domain or developing computational models with a single level of edit granularity, such as sentence-level edits, which differ from human's revision cycles. This work describes IteraTeR: the first large-scale, multi-domain, edit-intention annotated corpus of iteratively revised text. In particular, IteraTeR is collected based on a new framework to comprehensively model the iterative text revisions that generalize to various domains of formal writing, edit intentions, revision depths, and granularities. When we incorporate our annotated edit intentions, both generative and edit-based text revision models significantly improve automatic evaluations. Through our work, we better understand the text revision process, making vital connections between edit intentions and writing quality, enabling the creation of diverse corpora to support computational modeling of iterative text revisions.

LLMs are trained to refuse harmful instructions, but do they truly understand harmfulness beyond just refusing? Prior work has shown that LLMs' refusal behaviors can be mediated by a one-dimensional subspace, i.e., a refusal direction. In this work, we identify a new dimension to analyze safety mechanisms in LLMs, i.e., harmfulness, which is encoded internally as a separate concept from refusal. There exists a harmfulness direction that is distinct from the refusal direction. As causal evidence, steering along the harmfulness direction can lead LLMs to interpret harmless instructions as harmful, but steering along the refusal direction tends to elicit refusal responses directly without reversing the model's judgment on harmfulness. Furthermore, using our identified harmfulness concept, we find that certain jailbreak methods work by reducing the refusal signals without reversing the model's internal belief of harmfulness. We also find that adversarially finetuning models to accept harmful instructions has minimal impact on the model's internal belief of harmfulness. These insights lead to a practical safety application: The model's latent harmfulness representation can serve as an intrinsic safeguard (Latent Guard) for detecting unsafe inputs and reducing over-refusals that is robust to finetuning attacks. For instance, our Latent Guard achieves performance comparable to or better than Llama Guard 3 8B, a dedicated finetuned safeguard model, across different jailbreak methods. Our findings suggest that LLMs' internal understanding of harmfulness is more robust than their refusal decision to diverse input instructions, offering a new perspective to study AI safety

With the rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs), new and hard-to-predict harmful capabilities are emerging. This requires developers to be able to identify risks through the evaluation of "dangerous capabilities" in order to responsibly deploy LLMs. In this work, we collect the first open-source dataset to evaluate safeguards in LLMs, and deploy safer open-source LLMs at a low cost. Our dataset is curated and filtered to consist only of instructions that responsible language models should not follow. We annotate and assess the responses of six popular LLMs to these instructions. Based on our annotation, we proceed to train several BERT-like classifiers, and find that these small classifiers can achieve results that are comparable with GPT-4 on automatic safety evaluation. Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive, harmful, or biased.

Caution: this paper may include material that could be offensive or distressing. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates the development of training approaches that mitigate the generation of unethical language and aptly manage toxic user queries. Given the challenges related to human labor and the scarcity of data, we present KoTox, comprising 39K unethical instruction-output pairs. This collection of automatically generated toxic instructions refines the training of LLMs and establishes a foundational framework for improving LLMs' ethical awareness and response to various toxic inputs, promoting more secure and responsible interactions in Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications.

Efforts to ensure the safety of large language models (LLMs) include safety fine-tuning, evaluation, and red teaming. However, despite the widespread use of the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework, AI safety work focuses on standard LLMs, which means we know little about how RAG use cases change a model's safety profile. We conduct a detailed comparative analysis of RAG and non-RAG frameworks with eleven LLMs. We find that RAG can make models less safe and change their safety profile. We explore the causes of this change and find that even combinations of safe models with safe documents can cause unsafe generations. In addition, we evaluate some existing red teaming methods for RAG settings and show that they are less effective than when used for non-RAG settings. Our work highlights the need for safety research and red-teaming methods specifically tailored for RAG LLMs.

Online misinformation poses a global risk with harmful implications for society. Ordinary social media users are known to actively reply to misinformation posts with counter-misinformation messages, which is shown to be effective in containing the spread of misinformation. Such a practice is defined as "social correction". Nevertheless, it remains unknown how users respond to social correction in real-world scenarios, especially, will it have a corrective or backfire effect on users. Investigating this research question is pivotal for developing and refining strategies that maximize the efficacy of social correction initiatives. To fill this gap, we conduct an in-depth study to characterize and predict the user response to social correction in a data-driven manner through the lens of X (Formerly Twitter), where the user response is instantiated as the reply that is written toward a counter-misinformation message. Particularly, we first create a novel dataset with 55, 549 triples of misinformation tweets, counter-misinformation replies, and responses to counter-misinformation replies, and then curate a taxonomy to illustrate different kinds of user responses. Next, fine-grained statistical analysis of reply linguistic and engagement features as well as repliers' user attributes is conducted to illustrate the characteristics that are significant in determining whether a reply will have a corrective or backfire effect. Finally, we build a user response prediction model to identify whether a social correction will be corrective, neutral, or have a backfire effect, which achieves a promising F1 score of 0.816. Our work enables stakeholders to monitor and predict user responses effectively, thus guiding the use of social correction to maximize their corrective impact and minimize backfire effects. The code and data is accessible on https://github.com/claws-lab/response-to-social-correction.