Abstract
Safety evaluations of language models often treat serving configuration as fixed background infrastructure, but batch condition is an untested treatment variable whenever the same prompt may be evaluated alone, in a synchronized batch, or inside a continuous-batching scheduler. We synthesize four artifact-backed studies into a paired testing protocol: Study A combines local discovery, scorer-corrected adjudication, and true-batching confirmation; Study B tests cross-model generalization; Study C tests continuous-batch composition; and Study D runs a batch-invariant-kernel ablation. The local test finds safety-label changes more often than capability-label changes (0.51% vs. 0.14%), but adjudication of 63 candidate rows leaves only 17 genuine behavioral flips, implying a corrected full-set rate of 0.16%. The 15-model extension finds no detectable universal safety-over-capability skew: flips are near parity (0.94x), alignment type has no detectable association (p=0.942, η2=0.033), and output instability is the strongest tested fragility screen (r=0.909, bootstrap 95% CI [0.65, 0.97]). In the targeted kernel ablation, standard vLLM reproduces 22/55 label flips on current score-flip candidates, while enabling VLLM_BATCH_INVARIANT=1 reduces the same test to 0/55 flips; the composition test separately finds no aggregate effect at 4.7pp sensitivity. The testing recommendation is exact-stack validation: evaluate refusal at the served batch setting, pair safety prompts with capability controls, and report low-rate directional flips separately from aggregate null effects.
Explore similar work
May 6, 2026cs.AI
Refusal rates are a poor proxy for LLM safety, i.e., a model may over-refuse benign prompts while still complying with harmful ones. We audit both failure modes across 21 open-weight LLMs on four safety benchmarks (OR-Bench, XSTest, ToxiGen, BOLD), using a composition adjustment to isolate model sensitivity from dataset toxicity confounds. We report three findings. First, models adopt fundamentally different calibration strategies: conservative ecosystems such as Llama suppress unsafe outputs at the cost of elevated over-refusals, while permissive ecosystems such as DeepSeek and Qwen preserve helpfulness but tolerate higher harmful compliance. Second, demographic protection is unequal: models over-protect prominent racial and religious groups, frequently refusing even benign prompts about them, while providing substantially weaker protection against disability-targeted attacks. Third, refusal and compliance tendencies are stable within model families across generations and scales, suggesting that post-training objectives shape safety behavior more than architecture. Our results call for joint, demographically-aware, and multi-judge safety evaluation.
Alif Al Hasan, Sumon Biswas
Aug 5, 2026cs.CL
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to detect unsafe content. A common approach is to combine judgments from a panel of models to correct individual mistakes, but this benefit may disappear when every model sees the same misleading context before voting. We study this risk in a controlled two-round experiment. Each model first judges an item alone, then judges it again after six simulated peers either assert the wrong label or abstain. We combine the final judgments by majority vote. Across six open-weight LLMs and six datasets, we find that the wrong-label peer message raises the average reviewer false-alarm rate from 56.5% under silent peers to 87.5%, and majority voting raises the panel false-alarm rate to 100%. Without an asserted label, the same panel outperforms its average member. The effect is strongly asymmetric: reviewers follow pushes toward "unsafe" far more than pushes toward "safe" (about 75% versus 17%), so the panel's false-alarm rate rises sharply while its harmful-miss rate changes little. The proprietary-model probe shows substantial variation across models. These results identify susceptibility to shared social cues as a failure mode of safety panels and provide a simple pre-deployment diagnostic.
Yibo Hu, Jiaming Qu
Jun 24, 2026cs.CR
Safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is commonly performed by querying models with unsafe or jailbreak prompts and judging whether their outputs violate a safety policy. Although useful, output-level evaluation is expensive, sensitive to judge choice, and easily tied to fixed question banks. We propose SafeVec, a white-box evaluation procedure that measures safety from internal representations rather than generated answers. SafeVec first extracts layer-wise refusal directions from a safety-aligned reference model, then selects stable layer windows where safe and unsafe behaviors are separable, and finally scores a target model by measuring whether its hidden states align with these refusal directions under unsafe and jailbreak prompts. The resulting metric, RAS (Refusal Alignment Score), maps representation-level refusal alignment to a calibrated 0-100 safety score. Across Llama, Gemma, and Qwen model families, RAS separates aligned models from uncensored and abliterated variants, tracks output-level attack success rate, and is substantially faster than judge-based evaluation. These results suggest that refusal alignment provides a compact and efficient signal for white-box LLM safety evaluation.
Chang-Chieh Huang, Yan-Lun Chen, Chia-Mu Yu +1