Decoding-Level Taboo: A Diagnostic Stress Test for LLM Robustness

Large language models must frequently process untrusted inputs, such as judging an answer from another model or running tasks like spam and harm classifiers while under adversarial pressure. These inputs are often string-formatted directly into a prompt template, leaving systems fragile to manipulation. Current LLM specs from major providers like OpenAI distinguish trustworthiness along an Instruction Hierarchy, from System messages (most trusted) to Tool Results (least trusted). A possible natural mitigation is to wrap untrusted content in a mock tool call as a quarantine. We explore this hypothesis with an automated redteaming search over static attack strings across seven models and three LLM-as-a-Judge tasks. Counter to our hypothesis, tool-wrapping does not broadly improve robustness. On a binary evaluation task (GSM8K grading) it typically increases attack success rates, an apparent inversion of the instruction hierarchy. On scalar and pairwise tasks the effect is smaller and model-dependent, with no tested model reliably helped, and several showing inversion. We recommend evaluating this limitation in deployed systems, and longer-term, pursuing stronger Instruction Hierarchy training or new untrusted-input primitives.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) today rests on fixed benchmarks that apply the same set of items to any model, producing ceiling and floor effects that mask capability gaps. We argue that the most informative evaluation signal lies at the boundary, where the per-prompt pass probability is near $0.5$ under random-sampling decoding, and propose Dynamic Boundary Evaluation (DBE), which actively locates each model's boundary and places it on a globally comparable difficulty scale. DBE delivers three artifacts: (i) a calibrated item bank covering safety, capability, and truthfulness, with per-item difficulty labels validated across $9$ reference LLMs; (ii) Skill-Guided Boundary Search (SGBS), a search algorithm that finds boundary items for a given target LLM using only API-level query access; and (iii) an evaluation protocol that places a new LLM on a unified ability scale and grows the evaluation set adaptively when the target falls outside the bank's coverage. We instantiate DBE on four categories spanning safety (harmful request refusal and over-refusal), capability (constrained instruction following), and truthfulness (multi-turn sycophancy resistance). The resulting evaluation covers a broader model spectrum without saturation while remaining compatible with existing datasets.

Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical practice based on benchmark accuracy that may fail to detect safety-relevant failure modes. Here we present AI-MASLD, a stress-audit framework that adapts the logic of metabolic stress testing from hepatology to the evaluation of clinical LLMs. Using 240 clinical cases across six narrative perturbation probes, we subjected seven models to double-stress testing and quantified performance through three indices: metabolic index (MI), perturbation flip rate (PFR), and counterfactual fairness index (CFI). Under clean baseline conditions, all models performed uniformly well. Under realistic narrative stress, performance diverged sharply, revealing two distinct stress-response phenotypes. Quantized models exhibited pseudonormalization, in which low flip rates hid functional collapse. Medical supervised fine-tuning systematically degraded logical stability, fairness, and information extraction. An open-weight model matched or exceeded proprietary alternatives on every safety dimension. These findings establish narrative stress auditing as a necessary complement to accuracy-based evaluation.