Online Safety Monitoring for LLMs

Autonomous systems increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) yet the safety infrastructure surrounding these models introduces latency and compute overhead. This limits utility in resource-constrained, time-critical deployments. Existing external guardrail models remain blind to the model's internal workings, creating a fundamental assurance gap. We ask: does the model already know when the content is harmful? We extract activations from LLaMA-3.1-8B and train lightweight MLP classifier probes (12.6M parameters) to detect harmful prompts. Evaluated on WildJailbreak, Beavertails, and AEGIS 2.0, our probes achieve F1 scores of 99%, 83%, and 84%, respectively competitive with 1000x larger guard models while cutting latency and compute costs.

Recent research on Large Language Model (LLM) safety has widely adopted guardrails to identify unsafe LLM outputs. Existing guardrails typically formulate safety assessment as a deterministic classification task, mapping a discrete token sequence to a discrete safety label. However, this paradigm has two limitations: First, safety assessment is inherently an uncertain problem, particularly during the early generation state. Second, relying solely on discrete token sequences discards the rich probabilistic information embedded in the LLM output distribution. To address these limitations, we propose the first completely probabilistic architecture-agnostic guardrail \textsc{ProbGuard} to leverage the LLM early output distributional signals for estimating and calibrating the safety probability, thereby enabling early stopping of unsafe ongoing outputs. Specifically, given an LLM's generated prefix distribution, we formulate the safety risk as the unsafe probability of its continued generation dynamics and estimate this risk by Monte-Carlo sampling. Through post-training on the distributional signals and calibrated safety risk, \textsc{ProbGuard} achieves the best calibration performance across all nine model--dataset combination settings, reducing the average Brier score and ECE by 79.6% and 71.9%, respectively, over the best baseline. \textsc{ProbGuard} further limits the attack success rate to at most 1% across six representative jailbreak attacks after observing the LLM early output distributions from only the first ten decoding steps.

Several properties safety monitors are asked to certify, among them cross-tenant noninterference, sandbagging and evaluation awareness, are 2-safety hyperproperties, witnessed only by two executions. The standard consequence is a binary impossibility: one trace cannot decide them. We replace the binary with a measurement. A tight bound puts the balanced accuracy of any single-trace monitor at $\tfrac12+\tfrac12\,TV(P_0,P_1)$, turning undecidability into a graded detectability frontier and defining an oversight gap: a monitor's shortfall below it. On a leak family with closed-form $TV$, nine LLM monitors are optimal at $TV=0$ but capture little signal as $TV$ grows; at $TV=1$, where a 20-line membership check scores $100\%$, they average $60.9\%$. That shortfall is mostly not capability: naming what to check closes $61\%$ of it while leaving the $TV=0$ control at chance. The same split runs through a $2{\times}2$ factorial: an imagined second run leaves monitors at chance ($50.4\%$) while the same rule on an executed second run reaches $90.0\%$, and a stored oracle without a comparison procedure yields only $68.2\%$. Information and procedure are each necessary and neither is capability. Under nondeterminism, replay tracks a closed-form $k$-replay curve only under the right projection, and a projection frontier shows the resulting dilemma is forced: narrow misses $98.6\%$ of off-channel leaks, broad flags $75.7\%$ of clean traffic, and attainable accuracy decays like $1/(qm)$ in the benign-variation rate and the channel count. Finally, two frontier LLM judges certified an earlier version of our own benchmark as sound while a sign test found a directional bias ($p=2.7\times10^{-5}$) that invalidated three of our findings. Construction validity for hyperproperty benchmarks should be proved mechanically, not audited by models.