Abstract
Safety monitors screen prompts sent to deployed language models, flagging harmful requests so they are never answered. They are evaluated by recall against harmfulness labels, but a catch only prevents harm if the model would otherwise have complied. We measure the difference directly: we sample repeated responses from the target model, call a harmful prompt \emph{elicitable} if the model complies at least once, and report monitor recall separately on elicitable and non-elicitable prompts. Across six monitor configurations and three model families, spanning activation probes, fine-tuned text guards, and a 120B policy-conditioned reasoning classifier, recall on elicitable prompts falls 0.22 to 0.38 below recall on non-elicitable prompts at a fixed false positive rate. The prompts a monitor misses are 2.8 to 5.6 times more likely to be complied with than the prompts it catches. The gap replicates across three model families and appears also in text-only monitors entirely independent of the target model. This suggests that standard recall may overstate the protection monitors provide in practice, and that monitors should be evaluated against what their models will actually answer.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Explore similar work
Sep 16, 2026cs.AI
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.
Alizishaan Khatri, Chiquita Prabhu, Omkar Neogi
Wrynx Inc. · Independent Researcher
Jul 2, 2026cs.AI
Despite alignment training, LLMs remain prone to generating unsafe outputs at deployment time. Monitoring outputs online and raising an alarm when safety can no longer be assumed is therefore critical. We study a simple real-time monitor that turns a verifier signal from an external model into an alarm decision by thresholding, with the threshold calibrated via risk control. In experiments on mathematical reasoning and red teaming datasets, we show that this simple design is competitive with more advanced monitors based on sequential hypothesis testing.
Mona Schirmer, Metod Jazbec, Alexander Timans +3
UvA Bosch-Delta Lab, University of Amsterdam · University of Wisconsin Madison · Johns Hopkins University
May 13, 2026cs.CL
Current language models create two safety challenges: risk must be detected early enough to avoid exposing harmful continuation, and the harmfulness itself may be implicit rather than signaled by overtly toxic text. Existing response-level guards are strong at judging completed text, and native streaming guards move closer to token time, but both settings leave open whether a lightweight monitor can anticipate implicit harmful drift from the generator's own internal trajectory. We study anticipatory same-pass monitoring, where a safety monitor may read hidden states produced during ordinary decoding but may not invoke an additional forward pass through the base model. We introduce AERIC, a transfer-oriented hidden-state approach for implicit harmful dialogue that combines short-horizon hazard forecasting, support-sensitive suppression, and prompt-conditioned residual scoring under a same-pass exponential moving average decision rule. The default linear monitor contains only 387 trainable head parameters. Against Qwen3GuardStream-4B on balanced benchmarks, AERIC improves AUROC from 0.6830 to 0.7143 on DiaSafety and from 0.8219 to 0.8582 on Harmful Advice. For promptlevel trigger benchmarks, we calibrate the AERIC threshold by a source-side safe-budget rule that maximizes trigger coverage while constraining the safe-trigger rate to at most 10%. Under that rule, trigger@64 reaches 0.6438 and 0.4656 on HarmBench DirectRequest and 0.6849 and 0.7363 on SocialHarmBench for Qwen and Gemma, respectively, withholding between 23.53 and 41.86 answer tokens on average. Same-pass deployment is also efficient: on a 63-prompt harmfulprompt fixed-generation benchmark aggregated over HarmBench DirectRequest and SocialHarmBench under Qwen3-8B, the monitor increases mean latency by only 2.34%, whereas Qwen3Guard-Stream-4B increases it by 79.40%.
Jihyung Park, Saleh Afroogh, Junfeng Jiao
The University of Texas at Austin