Safety

As large language models (LLMs) evolve from standalone assistants into autonomous agents, ensuring their safety requires shifting beyond pointwise risk assessment to understand how risks emerge and unfold over long-horizon trajectories. In multi-turn interactions, malicious intent can be decomposed across seemingly harmless turns and gradually reconstructed through interaction trajectories, eventually resulting in safety failures. Existing safeguards remain largely reactive, detecting manifested violations while lacking the ability to predict latent risk evolution and enable preemptive prevention. To address this limitation, we propose Recast, a safety risk forecasting framework that advances LLM safeguarding beyond turn-level violation detection to trajectory-level risk prediction. Recast first retrieves risk-relevant evidence from both short-term dialogue progression and long-term historical context via a dual-scale trajectory view. It then models compositional risk evolution by capturing the current risk configuration and its temporal dynamics. Finally, a causal temporal encoder learns latent risk evolution patterns and predicts the distribution of future risk emergence turns. Extensive experiments across 7 risk categories show that Recast predicts 88.3% of future safety failures with an average lead time of 2.41 turns, while maintaining a false alarm rate of 12.3%, showcasing the effectiveness of trajectory-level forecasting in identifying emerging risks before safety violations occur.

This paper presents a radial basis function network (RBFN)-informed motion planning framework for safe and efficient urban autonomous driving. The proposed approach combines RBFN-based candidate trajectory generation with an analytic collision probability assessment and optimization-based trajectory refinement. The network learns jerk-minimal trajectories, enabling the MPC to operate within a reduced and dynamically consistent search space. Candidate motion primitives are selected based on an accurate probabilistic risk measure. This design decreases solver complexity while preserving safety and constraint satisfaction. The framework is evaluated in numerous urban driving scenarios. Results demonstrate improved risk awareness and fewer vehicle-limit violations compared to benchmark methods. The proposed approach integrates learning-based trajectories into optimization-based motion planning, thereby ensuring safety and interpretability.

Multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) integrate heterogeneous modalities through modality alignment and fusion, enabling stronger understanding and reasoning. However, this architectural shift reshapes the safety landscape of machine learning. Increased model complexity and cross-modal interactions give rise to novel threats, including compromised modality integration, modality misalignment, and fused safety risks, reflecting shifts in threat modeling beyond uni-modal assumptions. These shifts, in turn, impose new constraints on safety solutions not captured by existing frameworks rooted in uni-modal learning. Motivated by these challenges, this survey provides a systematic analysis of the evolving safety landscape of MLLMs. We first propose a multimodal grounded taxonomy of safety threats and analyze shifts in threat models, covering adversarial attacks, data poisoning, jailbreaks, and hallucinations. We then summarize updated safety assumptions and organize recent advances in MLLM safety strategies accordingly. Finally, we discuss open challenges and future directions to inform the development of more principled and scalable safety mechanisms for multimodal systems.

Jailbreak defenses are essential for protecting large language models (LLMs), but they can also introduce secondary costs that weaken model utility. We present a systematic study of these defense trade-offs along three dimensions: performance impact, over-refusal on benign inputs, and inference cost. Rather than treating defenses as a single class, we organize them by operational strategy and examine how different strategies correlate with different side-effect profiles. Across state-of-the-art defense methods, widely used benchmark datasets, and representative open-source LLMs, we find that defenses rarely improve downstream capability, but instead vary in how they trade safety gains against usability and efficiency. In particular, rule-based defenses best preserve task performance, highly conservative self-reflective defenses often increase over-refusal, and multi-round defenses incur the largest runtime overhead. These results provide both a benchmark for evaluating defense side effects and practical guidance for selecting defenses under deployment constraints.

Mainstream AI research emphasises capability growth and tolerates low failure rates when average-case performance is high. AI safety and alignment research has a different mission: to ensure that catastrophic failures never occur, under sparse evidence, adversarial dynamics, and fat-tailed risk. We argue that the two domains differ along two analytically independent axes---{\it capability profile}, demonstrating the absence of hazardous behaviours rather than the presence of positive capabilities, and {\it risk profile}, bounding worst-case outcomes under fat-tailed uncertainty rather than optimising average-case performance---and that mainstream epistemic practices are inadequate on both. Building on a structured synthesis grounded in a preregistered bibliometric baseline, we identify five cross-cutting gap dimensions in current alignment research, including the near-absence of institutionalised independent verification. To address these gaps, we propose {\sc ECAISA}, an Epistemic Code for AI Safety and Alignment comprising eight principles, a three-level scoring rubric, a four-level disclosure ladder that reconciles transparency with information-hazard and commercial-confidentiality constraints, a tiered applicability scheme, an information-hazard adjudication procedure, and seven anti-gaming mechanisms. {\sc ECAISA} does not certify that any AI system is safe; it constrains how safety-relevant research claims are documented, checked, and relied upon, with auditability rather than certification as its governance target.

Runtime guardrails act before irreversible tool calls, but their guarantees depend on what policy state is representable, what a judge observes, and whether intervention changes future behavior. We separate three questions. First, relative to fixed oracle predicates, a deterministic gate enforces exactly the nonempty safety policies whose good prefixes its register model recognizes; policy nontriviality is undecidable with two decrementable counters but in PSPACE for a separable monotone fragment. Second, under a fixed exogenous law, Neyman-Pearson gives the exact false-block/miss frontier and conformal calibration gives a finite-sample marginal certificate, possibly via block-all. Third, once blocking changes future proposals, static scores and ungated trajectories need not identify the closed-loop frontier; a specified finite controlled model instead yields an occupancy program. Bounded representation attacks add a robustness margin, so benign calibration alone does not transfer. Experiments target these distinctions through static diagnostics, controlled-model enumeration, representation rewrites, and paired closed-loop reruns.

As Video Large Language Models are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, ensuring their safety alignment has become critical. Counterintuitively, we find that harmful videos paired with benign queries achieve higher attack success rates than the same videos paired with explicitly harmful queries. To understand the underlying mechanism of this vulnerability, we present V-DEAL, a three-level diagnostic framework that jointly analyzes this failure across model behaviour, understanding, and internal representations. By progressively ruling out perception failure and quantifying the model's internal refusal tendency, V-DEAL provides a new diagnostic perspective for analyzing the underlying mechanism of the observed vulnerability. We tested six Video LLMs on three public benchmarks and observed that models correctly recognize harmful video content with over 81% accuracy, yet the average attack success rate still reaches 48.33% under the condition pairing harmful videos with benign queries. Hidden-state analysis further shows that visual understanding activates a weaker refusal tendency than textual understanding. Furthermore, we introduce a prompt injection intervention method that reduces attack success rates by an average of 48.24 percentage points and achieves performance comparable to prior fine-tuning-based methods, providing an effective and practical means to address such safety risks in Video LLMs.

Aquatic self-reconfigurable robots must assemble into desired shapes while ensuring safe interactions among multiple agents. This paper proposes a hybrid framework that combines distributed Model Predictive Control (MPC) with Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) for multi-agent shape formation and reconfiguration. Given a desired shape and target assignment, a distributed MPC scheme, solved via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM), computes coordinated trajectories through local optimization and information exchange. To ensure safety in real time, distributed CBF-based filters are applied to enforce inter-agent collision avoidance. The proposed approach leverages the predictive capabilities of MPC to mitigate local minima, while CBFs provide formal safety guarantees despite the nonconvexity of the underlying optimization problem. Simulation results with up to 25 agents and experimental validation with four physical robots demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of the framework.

We propose a novel framework for computing rigorous bounds on the probability that a large language model (LLM) generates harmful output to a given prompt. We study a new application of the Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals to obtain probably approximately correct (PAC) bounds for this problem. As our main technical contribution, we propose an algorithm that leverages features in the latent space to prioritize exploring branches in the auto-regressive generation tree that are more likely to produce harmful outputs. Our approach in particular enables the efficient computation of useful lower bounds, even in scenarios where the true harm probability is extremely small, and crucially, the obtained lower bounds are sound, i.e., formally proven to be less than the actual harmfulness probability: our experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by computing non-trivial lower bounds on state-of-the-art LLMs. This study newly enables the evaluation and statistical certification of LLMs.

Ensuring safety in Physical AI systems operating in real-world environments is a critical challenge, particularly in hospital wards where vulnerable patients, clinical staff, medical devices, and assistive robots coexist. In this paper, we reinterpret Clinical Pathways as explicit runtime safety specifications for embodied medical AI. We propose a conceptual robotic architecture that integrates wearable sensors, smart medical devices, and assistive robotic components into a unified framework for real-time safety monitoring. At its core, a Runtime Safety Monitor (RSM) evaluates multimodal physiological and system-level signals against clinically defined constraints derived from the prescribed care process. Rather than relying solely on statistical anomaly detection, the proposed approach combines temporal prediction, uncertainty-aware reasoning, and constraint-based verification to identify safety violations. The RSM targets three classes of events: physiological deviations from prescribed care, hardware and communication failures, and potential data tampering or misuse. This work contributes to Safe Physical AI by operationalizing domain-specific clinical knowledge as enforceable safety constraints, bridging learning-based perception and runtime safety monitoring to assist nursing staff in real-world hospital wards.

Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rather than spectacular, distributed across components rather than localized in a single output, and normalized by workflows before they are recognized as hazards. We argue that a central safety challenge in modern AI systems is increasingly not only whether a model emits a harmful response, but whether the broader socio-technical system preserves the conditions under which errors remain visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable. We propose a five-layer framework for diagnosing these hidden risks: (1) epistemic integrity, concerning whether evidence and uncertainty are represented honestly enough to support calibrated reliance; (2) control integrity, concerning whether authority, permissions, and action boundaries remain robust under attack and optimization; (3) temporal integrity, concerning whether safety holds across sessions, memory updates, and deployment drift; (4) organizational integrity, concerning whether institutions retain the capacity to audit, assign responsibility, and intervene effectively; and (5) ecosystem integrity, concerning whether AI systems preserve rather than erode the information environment on which future oversight depends. Across these layers, we identify under-recognized risk patterns, including overreliance, uncertainty and legitimacy laundering in retrieval, prompt injection, reward hacking, memory poisoning, evaluation deception, fictional human oversight, synthetic evidence pollution, and model collapse. We conclude with design and governance recommendations and a research agenda for shifting AI safety from model-centric evaluation toward socio-technical reliability.

Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks. We extend it to open-ended clinical conversation under missing information, where safe behavior means recognizing absent information and qualifying, clarifying, or not over-committing - and where the evaluator becomes part of the measurement. We stress-test four models - three flagships (Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, Grok 4.3) and one mid-tier model (Gemini 3.5 Flash) - by deleting the latter half of the final user turn in HealthBench conversations, grading responses with a four-provider LLM-judge panel and a blinded clinician-anchored reference. Two evaluator-facing results are robust. First, judge choice materially changes apparent safety: inter-judge agreement is only moderate (Fleiss' kappa = 0.65), and after adjusting for each judge's general leniency (vote-level logistic regression), a positive same-provider association remains (exact permutation p = 0.04; GPT-5.5 ~ +0.10 on the probability scale) - large enough to change which model appears to over-commit least once its own-provider judge is excluded. Second, LLM judges are more permissive than clinicians on a blinded 50-item subsample: all four are significantly more lenient than the stricter independent clinician (crediting appropriate uncertainty on 66-84% of items vs 52%), and three of four than the author-influenced consensus (Grok directional only; judge-vs-consensus kappa = 0.20-0.43). On the author-audited clinical-underdetermined subset the permissiveness gap widened and the point-estimate model ordering held. A closed-ended MedQA anchor confirms accuracy is high and option-order effects are within a +/-5-point equivalence region for three of four models, so the safety gap is about calibration, not knowledge. We release the harness, prompts, per-item outputs, judge panel, perturbation audit, and human-annotation protocol.

Defensive driving is widely recognized as an advanced driving skill. However, whether and how defensive driving affects driving safety remains insufficiently investigated. This study examines the behavioral characteristics of defensive driving, its impact on driving safety, and the underlying mechanisms. First, defensive driving is defined regarding operational timing and application scenario. Then, 82 participants are recruited for driving simulator experiments, with their behavioral and eye movement data being collected. Following the experiments, participants are categorized into groups based on the frequency of defensive driving behaviors exhibited. Finally, both inter-group and inter trial comparisons are performed on the experimental data. Experimental results demonstrate that in the inter-group comparison, the high defensive driving capability group exhibits higher acceleration and deceleration magnitudes, lower average speeds, and larger average absolute yaw angles compared to the low capability group, alongside shorter fixation durations and reduced fixation frequencies. Moreover, we observe that these participants tend to initiate defensive or evasive actions earlier, resulting in lower scenario risk. Regarding the inter-trial comparison, we observe similar trends exclusively in the low capability group, whereas most metrics show no significant differences between Trial 1 and Trial 2 in the high capability group. These results reveal that drivers possessing defensive driving capabilities tend to execute more intense driving maneuvers and identify risks and take action earlier, thereby enhancing driving safety. Findings support the promotion of defensive driving and provide a basis for relevant training programs. Meanwhile, they offer insights for the training of autonomous driving algorithms with defensive driving capabilities.

Large language models (LLMs) serving as planners in tool-using autonomous agents introduce dynamic reliability risks in multi-turn execution. While single-turn safety mechanisms are relatively mature, extended interactions reveal structural vulnerabilities where initial alignment degrades over time. This paper empirically characterizes two observed failure modes across multiple state-of-the-art LLMs: Safety Drift, the gradual erosion of declared safety intent leading to constraint-violating actions (e.g., textual refusal followed by reconnaissance and unsafe execution), and Operational Hallucination, persistent repetitive tool calls indicative of flawed state perception (e.g., livelocks even in legitimate tasks). Through controlled multi-turn evaluation on high-stakes ethical dilemmas, malicious requests, and benign controls, we quantify these phenomena using declaration-action gap and livelock metrics, demonstrating their cross-model prevalence under direct execution protocols. Root-cause analysis attributes the instabilities to the decoupling of reasoning context from execution state in current agent loops. We propose an Action-Aware Supervision Layer - a lightweight, plug-and-play architectural blueprint incorporating intent-action consistency checks, runtime state tracking, and forced termination primitives. Post-hoc simulation on captured failure trajectories shows the layer can intercept observed violations without false positives on benign cases. This work advances agent reliability by shifting focus from linguistic safeguards to enforceable architectural mechanisms for responsible agentic AI.

Mobile robots in public spaces must ensure pedestrians' comfort, and yet empirical studies of walkers' subjective safety are rare. Many classical navigation algorithms do not distinguish the walkers from dynamic obstacles and do not explicitly model subjective human factors. Moreover, most studies focus on holonomic mobile robots, whereas applications demand Nonholonomic Mobile Robots (NMR). This paper develops socially aware algorithms for NMRs, proves the stability, verifies the performance experimentally, and statistically analyzes the reported comfort. We design a framework for NMRs using Social Force Model (SFM) and the projected Time-to-collision Social Force Model (TSFM). We formalize the NMR-pedestrians' and NMR-obstacles' interactions and prove the system's stability, assuming boundedly nonpassive pedestrians. Simulations calibrate the models by maximizing a hybrid cost function of comfort and speed. Pedestrian-robot interaction experiments compare SFM and TSFM to two remote-controlled baselines and collect walkers' reported comfort. Statistical tools analyze survey results collected during the experiments. Benchmarking the algorithms against previous studies highlights the proposed methods' advantage with respect to the studied metrics. Overall, the models are stable and improve pedestrian comfort when an NMR navigates through a pedestrian crowd.

This paper investigates the optimal safety control problem of nonlinear control systems by proposing novel high-order control barrier functions (HOCBFs). Different from zeroing HOCBFs, two novel HOCBFs are derived and the safety controllers are designed in an explicit way. Next, we implement vector Lyapunov function approach to propose a novel high-order control Lyapunov function (HOCLF) for the stabilization control problem. The relations between the proposed and existing HOCBFs are discussed. Afterwards, the compatibility of the proposed HOCLF and HOCBF is addressed to guarantee the stabilization and safety control objectives simultaneously, and thus the optimal controller is established. Finally, a numerical example from the navigation problem of quadrotors is presented to illustrate the efficacy of the derived results.

Safety validation at signalized intersections remains a critical bottleneck for the deployment of autonomous driving systems (ADS), as these scenarios involve dense heterogeneous traffic, contested right of way, and long-tail safety-critical interactions, posing significant challenges to the Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF). Existing naturalistic driving datasets often suffer from geographical homogeneity, sparsity of safety-critical events, and lack of semantic risk annotations, which limit the evaluation of algorithmic generalizability and targeted SOTIF verification. To address these gaps, this paper introduces SinD 2.0, a large-scale drone-based intersection dataset dedicated to cross-domain ADS safety analysis. The main contributions of SinD 2.0 are: (1) Cross-domain diversity: It covers six signalized intersections across four Chinese cities, capturing distinct intersection topologies and regional driving behavior characteristics; (2) High-density risk interactions: A total of 32,682 safety-critical events are extracted via surrogate safety measures, significantly enriching the density of boundary test scenarios; (3) Hierarchical semantic annotations: Besides integration with high-definition (HD) maps and Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) data, it provides multi-dimensional semantic labels including traffic violations, high-risk interactions, visual shielding, and narrow feasible areas; (4) Full-stack testing toolchain: It supports automated scenario extraction, prediction-only evaluation, open-loop replay, reactive closed-loop testing, and photorealistic rendering. Benchmark experiments demonstrate that SinD 2.0 exhibits significant domain shifts across cities, and the semantic risk subsets can effectively expose the performance limitations of ADS algorithms. The dataset, annotations, and testing toolchain are available at https://github.com/SOTIF-AVLab/SinD/tree/main.

In our prior work, Pedestrian Archetypes, we defined pedestrian archetypes as collections of behaviors that uniquely identify a specific type of pedestrian. The first paper proposed 12 pedestrian archetypes, including the Wanderer, Drunk, Distracted, Flash, Indecisive, Blind, Flock, Jaywalker, Elderly, Kid, Eventful, and Parked Pedestrian. These archetypes were introduced to move beyond single behavior labels and provide a more natural way to describe how dangerous pedestrians actually behave progressively in real-world traffic scenarios. However, upon further annotation of YouTube dash-cam videos, we identified 7 additional pedestrian archetypes with observable and significant behavioral differences from the previously proposed ones. These new archetypes capture pedestrian behavior patterns that could not be fully explained by the original taxonomy. In this pre-print, we introduce each new archetype, define its essential and optional behaviors, explain how it differs from previously proposed archetypes, and provide video-frame evidence showing the archetype in action.

Urban intersections are among the most hazardous locations in road networks, posing significant risks to vehicles and vulnerable road users (VRUs) such as pedestrians and cyclists. The complexity of multi-agent interactions demands continuous, real-time monitoring systems capable of anticipating conflicts before they escalate into crashes. We present PRISA, a modular infrastructure LiDAR framework leveraging privacy-preserving, low-light-robust roadside sensors for long-term traffic observation and real-time risk detection at the edge. The framework comprises two core components: a sensing and perception layer and a plug-and-play risk assessment module. The latter automatically curates site-specific training data from accumulated perception outputs to train a trajectory prediction model without manual annotation. It then deploys the trained model for continuous motion forecasting and dual surrogate safety evaluation, using Time-to-Collision (TTC) for longitudinal conflicts and Predicted Post-Encroachment Time (PPET) for crossing and VRU-involved interactions. PRISA is evaluated on the public R-LiViT dataset and deployed on an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor at a live signalized intersection in Chattanooga, Tennessee. PPET-based assessment operates at 194~ms end-to-end latency over a 2.4-second predictive horizon, with TTC-based detection and perception remaining within real-time constraints, demonstrating practical feasibility for proactive multi-agent intersection safety monitoring.

Frontier AI companies have published capability thresholds that differ substantially, making it difficult for third parties to verify whether a threshold has been crossed or to compare requirements across companies. Moreover, without common minimum thresholds, risk mitigation may be inconsistent, creating a potential race to the bottom in safety standards. We develop a methodology for deriving harmonized thresholds across three risk domains. For misuse risks (cyber and biological), we take expected harm as the key primitive and use an explicit risk-modeling approach that accounts for risk channels and model release conditions. For automated AI R&D, we base our proposed threshold on the observed rate of AI progress rather than expected harm. Our analysis expands upon prior work and highlights existing empirical gaps and limitations.

Safety alignment in LLMs aims to align models with human values, but which values take precedence when they conflict? We investigate this question in the context of tool-calling LLM agents deployed in regulated industries, where agents processing confidential documents may encounter content that triggers safety-trained values (e.g., public welfare) that conflict with deployment-context instructions (e.g., internal logging). To empirically verify this phenomenon, we build a benchmark of 128 scenarios across 16 domains. We find that safety-aligned open-source models override their deployment instructions up to 43.4% of the time, engaging in whistleblowing, data exfiltration, and evidence tampering when processing documents that suggest organizational wrongdoing. We also find that abliteration reduces rates of external whistleblowing. These results reveal a fundamental tension in pluralistic alignment, where the same safety training that protects users can cause agents to act against deployment instructions in ways that create unpredictable liability risks. We release our benchmark as a framework to support evaluation of agent behavior under competing legitimate interests.

The capability of LLM agents to function as the ``brain'' of a system fundamentally expands the scope of analysis beyond a standalone model. Consequently, safety is no longer only about input--output content alignment. It also concerns system behavior and real-world execution outcomes. However, the current literature is fragmented across attack types, applications, and benchmarks. This makes it hard to explain why failures such as prompt injection, tool misuse, and memory poisoning often share the same structural cause, and how they spread through an agent workflow. In this survey, we treat isolation as a first-class principle for LLM-agent system safety. By isolation, we refer to the separation of user inputs, tool access, execution channels, inter-agent communication, and environment-originated context. We organize the literature with a boundary-centric taxonomy of five boundaries: user-agent, agent-tool, agent-execution, agent-agent, and system-environment. This view helps identify where the loss of isolation first occurs, how compromise propagates across boundaries, and which defenses are most relevant at each interface. We also summarize cross-boundary failure paths, discuss open challenges, and outline a research agenda for isolation-by-construction in future agent systems.

Safety alignment in large language models can be fragile under fine-tuning, as even benign task adaptation may increase harmful compliance. Existing defenses mainly follow two directions: they either intervene during or after fine-tuning through retraining or weight modification, which can be costly and may hurt task performance, or they use model-agnostic safety classifiers, which may miss failures specific to a given fine-tuned checkpoint. These limitations motivate a post hoc, model-specific, and non-invasive approach to safety restoration. To meet these requirements, we propose HyperSafe, a framework that restores safety behavior by generating a model-specific Safe Side Network (SSN) for each fine-tuned checkpoint. HyperSafe uses layer-wise activation fingerprints to capture how fine-tuning changes the model's inner representations. With a small set of given calibration prompts, the hypernetwork maps these fingerprints to the parameters of the \ssn{} in a single forward pass. The generated \ssn{} runs alongside the frozen fine-tuned model and performs prompt-level safety classification: harmful prompts are routed to refusal, while safe prompts are answered by the original fine-tuned model. Thus, HyperSafe requires no gradient updates, no safety data at deployment time, and no modification to the deployed model weights. We evaluate HyperSafe on two model families, Qwen2-7B and LLaMA-3-8B, across multiple safety benchmarks. HyperSafe reduces harmful response rates from 19-31% to below 1% on every held-out checkpoint, while keeping downstream task accuracy within 1% of the fine-tuned baseline on average. Code is available at https://github.com/nokronim/project-safety-remedy.

We evaluate when sparse autoencoder (SAE) features act as localized control handles for safety-relevant behavior. This question is difficult because apparent success can arise from weak interventions, mismatched baselines, model robustness, or degenerate outputs that automated safety judges mark as unsafe without representing meaningful harmful compliance. We introduce a matched coherence-gated evaluation protocol for runtime safety interventions: methods are compared at matched target-effect points, and the primary target metric counts harmful compliance only when an output is both judge-unsafe and coherent. Applying this protocol to three prompt splits on Gemma-2-9B-it with a Gemma Scope layer-20 residual SAE, we find that SAE feature ablation has a narrow useful regime. SAE top800 reaches a low-to-mid target effect with lower total perturbation and competitive utility, but SAE top1600 loses utility relative to a matched dense refusal-direction baseline, and SAE top3200 primarily induces coherence collapse. Human audit confirms that coherence gating removes unsafe-only artifacts, and feature diagnostics show that the useful regime is driven by a stable head of refusal-aligned features whose activation separation decays rapidly with rank. These results argue that SAE-based safety interventions should be evaluated as regime-dependent control mechanisms rather than assumed to be uniformly localized.

Safety alignment in large language models remains brittle across languages: prompts reliably refused in English can elicit harmful compliance in non-English and low-resource settings. We introduce \textsc{Minionese}, a multilingual jailbreak benchmark spanning 18 languages, 4 resource tiers, and 4 perturbation types (standard translation, code-switching, transliteration, and translationese), paired with a geometric mechanistic analysis of refusal failure across language tiers. We show that each attack type produces a distinct vulnerability profile: transliteration vulnerability is mediated by script identity, code-switching maintains effectiveness through the lowest-resource tier, and a sharp safety regime transition between Tiers 2 and 3 is consistent across all models. Mechanistically, low-resource jailbreaks succeed by routing harmful content through a geometrically misaligned subspace that projects insufficiently onto the refusal directions, leaving the refusal mechanism intact but untriggered. These findings show that English-only safety evaluations are insufficient; they require accounting for script family, perturbation type, and per-language alignment coverage. The benchmark and analysis code is at https://github.com/Brentkong/Minionese-Comprehensive-Benchmark-and-Mechanistic-Study-of-Multilingual-LLM-Safety.git.

Autonomous exploration in unknown environments is typically driven by informative frontiers, viewpoints, or trajectories, while local safety controllers avoid obstacles represented in the current map. Under finite sensing range and limited field of view, this separation can be unsafe: an exploration stack may plan optimistically through unobserved space and steer the sensor toward information gain rather than along the direction of motion, causing hidden obstacles to be detected too late for bounded-actuation avoidance. This paper presents SEAMLiS (Safe Exploration for Autonomous Multi-Robot Systems Under Limited Sensing), a modular execution-layer safety framework for decentralized multi-robot exploration. SEAMLiS preserves the upstream exploration stack, including the goal allocator and local planner, and enforces safety at the execution layer through perception-aware attitude and positional filters. A gatekeeper-based attitude filter switches between a visibility-promoting yaw policy and a velocity-tracking backup policy to preserve visibility of the critical known-free/unknown boundary with sufficient braking margin. A Control Barrier Function (CBF)-based positional filter then avoids known obstacles, newly detected obstacles, and other robots. We provide sufficient collision-avoidance conditions and validate the framework in randomized simulation, Isaac Sim, and Crazyflie hardware experiments. Results show collision-free exploration across tested single- and multi-robot settings while retaining much of the efficiency of visibility-promoting yaw control.

Mobile robots are going to share the sidewalks with pedestrians. They must ensure their objective safety and respect the walkers' subjective safety/comfort. Computationally efficient Social Force Models (SFM) present interpretable solutions for real-time robot navigation in dynamic crowds. Recent explorations of Projected Time-to-collision (PTTC) integration into SFM variants, for example, PTTC-based SFM (TSFM), improve safety metrics. But the effect of predictive variants is unclear. We introduce Predictive SFM (PSFM) and Predictive TSFM (PTSFM) by integrating predicted social force vectors over a finite time horizon. The paper implements SFM, TSFM, PSFM, and PTSFM on a nonholonomic mobile robot and performs experimental trials with volunteers attending a facing scenario. We systematically study objective and subjective safety across the variants. Minimum PTTC, average speed, minimum distance, lateral distance, and the maximum trajectory curvature benchmark the objective safety. Likert scale post-interaction surveys assess subjective safety by marking comfort, smoothness, distance appropriateness, and speed suitability. We confirm that PTTC integration improves safety metrics. The prediction contribution is limited and occasionally visible in some of the sub-metrics. Some participants perceive smoother movements and safer speed behavior with predictive methods, but Mann-Whitney tests reveal no significant differences in subjective ratings. Therefore, PTTC-based navigation enhances safety, whereas the formulated prediction offers limited additional benefits in single-pedestrian scenarios.

Behavioral alignment in large language models often masks fragile internal safety representations. Recent work suggests that refusal behavior is mediated by low-dimensional directions in activation space. This raises questions about how such representations are structured, localized, and accessed by optimization. We study adversarial suffix attacks as a probe of representational alignment. We introduce Activation-Guided GCG, which replaces output-based objectives with losses that directly target a model's internal refusal direction. Across several objective variants, we find that suppressing refusal globally across all layers and positions is more effective than targeting a single layer-position pair. This suggests that safety representations are distributed across the forward pass rather than causally localized to a single site. We further introduce Soft-GCG, a continuous relaxation of discrete suffix optimization using Gumbel-Softmax. Soft-GCG achieves a 33 $\times$ speedup over standard GCG while improving attack success rates. Evaluating across model scales, we find that smaller models remain vulnerable while larger models resist both activation- and suffix-based attacks at our compute-constrained settings, consistent with larger and better safety trained models being harder to jailbreak. Together, our results clarify how safety mechanisms are encoded and can be broken in contemporary models. These insights provide concrete guidance for designing more robust and representation-aware alignment strategies.

Diagnostic error is a major threat to patient safety, yet current large language model (LLM) systems often treat diagnosis as a one-shot prediction task, lacking safeguards against missed high-risk alternatives or rigorous verification of their reasoning. Here, we present AegisDx, a safety-oriented framework for hypothetico-deductive clinical reasoning. AegisDx coordinates specialized LLM components through role-specific contracts, structured intermediate outputs, evidence-retrieval interfaces, and verification gates to generate broad differential diagnoses, enforce explicit screening for dangerous "must-not-miss" conditions, verify reasoning against grounded medical evidence, and structure actionable next steps. We evaluated AegisDx across three layers. On literature-derived case reports from NEJM and JAMA, with GPT-oss-120B as the shared backbone, Top-3 diagnostic accuracy was 59.9% versus 52.1% for the standalone LLM on JAMA cases and 62.7% versus 51.4% on NEJM cases. On cases from Annals of Emergency Medicine, Top-3 accuracy was 85.7% versus 68.6%; against physician-consensus must-not-miss diagnosis sets, AegisDx captured at least one such condition among its top three diagnoses in 78.0% of cases versus 52.0%. In a blinded physician evaluation of 43 real-world emergency department notes from the Yale New Haven Health System compared against GPT-5, AegisDx improved the physician-rated composite safety score from 4.31 to 4.55 on a 5-point scale (adjusted p = 2.1x10^-4), with qualitative gains in must-not-miss identification and reasoning safety. Our findings suggest that engineering diagnostic AI as a safety-oriented reasoning framework, rather than optimizing raw predictive accuracy alone, can provide a safer, more transparent, and clinically meaningful layer of bedside decision support for acute care workflows.

We introduce institutional red-teaming, an evaluation methodology for testing deployment rules in multi-agent AI: hold the agents, objectives, and task state fixed, vary only one rule, and attribute the resulting change in collective behavior to that rule. We instantiate the methodology in IABench-CA, a consequence-allocation benchmark spanning 228 contexts, five canonical rules, and seven model populations (33,924 games), with a normative cooperative reference and auto-labelled reasoning traces. Three findings emerge. (1) Deployment rules causally alter collective safety: changing only the consequence rule moves mean fatality by 22 to 58 percentage points within every population. (2) There is no safe default, but the targeting hazard is universal: the safest rule, the least-safe rule, and even the direction of the incidence effect vary across populations, yet regressive identity-targeting is never decisively safest in any context for any population, eliminates the least-resourced agent in 30-87% of games everywhere, and is selection-unsafe relative to the cooperative reference for all seven populations. (3) Identity salience is the mechanism: a one-shot anonymization ablation on the most exploitation-prone population (gpt-5.1) shows that merely naming the loss bearer in the rule text drives targeted elimination from 22% to 81% at identical payoffs; under repeated play, anonymization only delays the targeting, as agents re-infer the hidden rule from observed eliminations. We package the methodology as a safety-case workflow that certifies a provisional rule region $Φ(c,P)$ per deployment context and population, with explicit residual risks and monitoring obligations.

Safety for generalist robots is usually discussed in terms of motion or dialogue. We argue a third question is missing: should the robot take its first hard-to-undo social action at all, such as a greeting, an uninvited grasp, or stepping into someone's space? We call this initiation authorization. Current frameworks rarely treat it as a separate safety layer. Today's stacks often skip this step: a high engagement score or a confident VLA rollout is treated as permission to act. But seeing a person is not the same as having their consent to be addressed. We frame initiation authorization within generalist-robot safety and contrast it with post-plan VLA guardrails, implementing PAS (probe-authorize-speak) on a doorway humanoid, comparing it with direct-init on logged traces, and proposing a three-condition user study, with open questions on metrics, governance, and where initiation ends and foundation-model generation begins.

Pre-deployment safety evaluations aim to inform the downstream risks of releasing a new AI model. Yet most evaluations provide limited evidence about how often undesired model behavior will occur in deployment: they generally have insufficient coverage, are unrepresentative, and are generally recognizable as tests. To address these concerns, we study a simple way to simulate a model deployment: starting from de-identified conversations from a previous model deployment, we hold fixed the initial conversation prefix and regenerate the next response using a candidate model. The resulting responses can then both be audited for novel misalignments and used to estimate the prevalence of model misbehavior before deployment. We evaluate deployment simulation across four GPT-5-series deployments, using registered, outcome-blinded predictions for GPT-5.4 and retrospective analyses of three earlier releases. We find that deployment simulation produces informative estimates of post-deployment misbehavior rates and outperforms baselines based on adversarially selected production data; its evaluation-awareness point estimates were also much closer to production traffic than those from traditional evaluations. We also identify the realism of tool resampling as a central challenge for further improving predictions and share results suggesting that this challenge is surmountable even in complex tool-use settings. Finally, we show that deployment simulation can be seeded from public chat datasets and remain informative about production misbehavior rates, suggesting a path for external researchers to run deployment-grounded evaluations without access to private production logs. Overall, deployment simulation helps evaluators forecast how language models will behave in the real world and supports more quantitative assessment of deployment risk.

Autonomous driving systems require reliable safety validation before real-world deployment. However, large-scale road testing is costly, difffcult to reproduce, and inefffcient for exposing rare safety-critical scenarios. Conventional simulation improves repeatability, but an offfine simulator alone cannot continuously connect physical trafffc states, virtual reconstruction, algorithm evaluation, and scenario evolution. This paper proposes a risk-ffeld enhanced closed-loop digital twin framework for autonomous driving safety validation. The framework integrates physical data acquisition, data synchronization, virtual twin reconstruction, risk-aware scenario generation, autonomous driving algorithm evaluation, and safety analysis. A driving risk ffeld is introduced as a uniffed intermediate representation to describe obstacle, lane-departure, road-boundary, time-to-collision, and comfort-related risks around the ego vehicle. The risk ffeld ranks high-risk scenarios in the digital twin scenario library and provides dense safety guidance for reinforcement learning-based driving policies. A simulation-style evaluation protocol is designed to compare conventional reinforcement learning baselines, risk-penalty baselines, and the proposed risk-ffeld guided method. The study indicates that embedding explicit risk structure into digital twins can make autonomous driving validation more targeted, interpretable, and reusable, while its practical effectiveness remains bounded by model ffdelity, risk calibration, and sim-to-real transfer.

Large language model (LLM)-assisted software security operates at a difficult boundary: the vulnerability-analysis terminology needed for legitimate code review, triage, and repair can closely resemble terminology associated with misuse. Existing safety and cybersecurity evaluations are difficult to interpret in this setting because they often compare unrelated model families, thereby conflating safety behavior with differences in architecture, scale, training data, and deployment. To isolate this factor, we study safety state: whether refusal behavior remains intact (Aligned) or has been refusal-ablated (Abliterated) within same-lineage models. We ask how this safety state affects defensive utility across software-security workflows. We compare aligned instruction-tuned models with publicly released refusal-ablated descendants from two model families, Gemma and Qwen. We evaluate Aligned and Abliterated states on vulnerability detection, CWE attribution, vulnerable-line localization, root-cause localization, and executable patch validation. We further treat prompt wording as a controlled framing dimension: prompts begin with neutral code-review language, add authorization context, and vary the density of cybersecurity terminology. In a Gemma-based Java/Vul4J repair-validation study, Abliterated achieves higher early-stage validation rates, with 67.8%, 65.0%, and 32.8% of patches judged usable, successfully applied, and successfully compiled, respectively, compared with 29.9%, 24.9%, and 9.0% for Aligned. In the Qwen pair, Abliterated improves localization performance, increasing line-level F1 from 2.08% to 3.91% and Top-1 accuracy from 4.10% to 6.95%. These findings suggest that evaluations of LLM-based security assistants should jointly measure whether models respond, whether their usable responses are correct, and whether their outputs remain actionable across the engineering workflow.

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.

We present HaloGuard 1.0, an open-weights implementation of the constitutional-classifier paradigm for input safety. It achieves state-of-the-art performance on English and multilingual prompt-safety benchmarks at roughly one-tenth the model size of current leading open guard models. The safety constitution is the organising structure of the corpus: a natural-language constitution of 46 policies and 2,940 subcategories drives synthetic data generation, with exhaustive one-to-one paired counterfactuals that hold topic and vocabulary fixed while flipping intent, a two-tier harmless design that separately targets boundary and baseline false positives (FPs), and balanced multilingual materialisation across 46 languages that treats language as a surface form appearing on both sides of the boundary rather than as an adversarial signal. Across seven prompt-safety benchmarks, HaloGuard 1.0-0.8B attains the best average F1 (90.9) of any open guard we evaluate, outperforming baselines up to 27B parameters (over 30 times larger) while holding false-positive rate (FPR) to 4.3 and false-negative rate (FNR) to 9.5. The HaloGuard 1.0-4B variant reaches average F1 of 92.1 and FPR of 3.5, spending its extra capacity on precision rather than recall. A structured adjudication of the remaining failures indicates that most apparent missed-harm cases are benchmark mislabels rather than genuine model misses. An always-on adversarial red-teaming protocol continuously hardens the guard against both content-level and agentic attacks. We release the models as open weights.

Safety training for large language models (LLMs) is conducted predominantly in English, leaving uncertain how well safety mechanisms generalize to low-resource languages and mixed-language code-switching. We show that this creates an epistemic gap in which models confidently generate harmful responses for inputs that fall outside the distribution of their safety training. To study this phenomenon, we introduce STEER (Safety Targeted Embedding Exploit via Refinement), a gradient-guided attack that identifies words contributing most strongly to the model's refusal behavior and iteratively translates them into low-resource languages to suppress refusal while preserving harmful intent. Across six open-source 8B-parameter models, STEER achieves attack success rates of up to 93.0% on JailbreakBench and 96.7% on AdvBench, outperforming random code-switching and Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG). The resulting prompts also transfer to GPT-4o-mini, achieving a 35.5% attack success rate without requiring access to the target model, suggesting that the underlying weakness is not specific to a single architecture. These findings demonstrate that safety mechanisms aligned primarily on English cannot be assumed to generalize across multilingual inputs. We argue that improving multilingual safety requires broader coverage during alignment and mechanisms that explicitly detect and abstain on out-of-distribution inputs.

LLM agents increasingly perform autonomous actions through external tools, leading to complex and evolving safety risks. However, existing safety testing targets expert-designed safety violations, and the corresponding outcomes are evaluated by hard-coded rules, making them costly to extend as agents evolve. To this end, we present Vera, an end-to-end automated safety testing framework that instantiates software engineering testing principles for non-deterministic agents through a three-stage, self-reinforcing pipeline. First, a literature-driven exploration continuously discovers and structures emerging risks into taxonomies of safety risks, attack methods, and tool execution environments. Second, combinatorial composition across taxonomy dimensions produces executable safety cases, each specifying a concrete safety goal, a programmatically constructed initial state, and a deterministic verification predicate grounded in observable artifacts. Third, adaptive execution runs heterogeneous agents in isolated sandboxes where a control agent steers multi-turn interaction based on runtime observations, while evidence-grounded verifiers judge outcomes from environment state and tool-call evidence rather than model self-report. We evaluate Vera on four production agent frameworks (OpenClaw, Hermes, Codex, Claude Code), revealing substantial safety weaknesses, with average attack success rates reaching 93.9% under multi-channel attacks; we also release Vera-Bench, comprising 1600 executable safety cases spanning 124 risk categories across three execution settings. These results indicate that modular, executable testing infrastructure is essential for rigorous and maintainable safety evaluation of rapidly evolving agentic systems at scale. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/Yunhao-Feng/Vera.

Safety evaluations for language models increasingly depend on judgments about ambiguous natural-language behaviour: whether a model has followed an instruction, refused appropriately, complied with a policy, resisted an embedded command, or misreported progress in an agentic task. Existing benchmarks often compress these distinctions into pass/fail labels, obscuring whether failures arise from capability limits, policy ambiguity, instruction conflict, scaffold failure, or unstable evaluator judgments. This paper introduces adversarial pragmatics as a benchmark and annotation protocol for evaluating model behaviour under instruction conflict, embedded commands, quotation, scope ambiguity, deixis, indirect speech acts, and multi-turn agent transcripts. The contribution is empirical and methodological: a linguistically controlled taxonomy, an 18-item seed benchmark with validator-enforced metadata, a 54-row local seed pilot, an expert-evaluation protocol distinguishing task success, policy compliance, safety risk, refusal outcome, and evaluator confidence, and metrics for judge validity, diagnostic ambiguity, and taxonomy drift. The benchmark treats labels as inference licenses: it tests whether safety-relevant categories project across paraphrase, wrapper, model, and judge condition. In the pilot, a rubric-aided LLM judge graded its own outputs with expected-behaviour fields visible and still missed the safety-relevant minority classes.

Current molecular generation benchmarks emphasize task complexity, molecule novelty, and property alignment; they largely overlook a critical concern: the potential safety risks of AI-generated molecules. In practice, many generative models may produce molecules with toxic, reactive, or otherwise hazardous characteristics - posing hidden dangers that remain insufficiently addressed. To address this gap, we introduce MolSafeEval, a benchmark dedicated to evaluating and analyzing the safety risks of molecular generation. Unlike prior approaches that rely on narrow toxicity predictors, MolSafeEval integrates heterogeneous safety knowledge - ranging from toxicological databases to hazard rules - into a structured molecular safety knowledge graph. This graph serves as a foundation for large language model-based reasoning, enabling systematic detection and explanation of unsafe features in generated compounds. We further categorize molecular generative models into four representative task types - unconditional generation, property optimization, target protein-based design, and text-based generation - and provide standardized datasets and safety evaluation protocols for each. By systematically revealing the safety vulnerabilities of current generative approaches, MolSafeEval offers a new lens for benchmarking molecular models and provides essential guidance toward safer, more trustworthy molecular design.

To improve safety in Large Language Models (LLMs) we can either perform post-training alignment or exploit refusal directions in the activation space. Both strategies are less feasible in Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) as they require unsafe multimodal data, harder to collect than their unimodal counterpart. In this work, we relax this constraint and investigate whether textual refusal directions, extracted directly from the LLM backbone, generalize across modalities (i.e., image, video). Preliminary findings confirm this ability, though effectiveness is conditioned by layer selection, steering strength, and cross-modal alignment, with the latter causing safe multimodal inputs to be spuriously steered toward refusal. Building on this, we introduce Modality-Agnostic Refusal Steering (MARS), a light-weight training-free approach that injects multimodal safety without the need for multimodal safety data. MARS corrects modality misalignment via activation re-centering, adaptively scales steering strength within a geometrically defined trust region, and selects the optimal intervention layer, operating at the first generated token. Evaluated on five SOTA MLLMs across safety, utility, and video jailbreak benchmarks, MARS achieves consistent safety gains while preserving utility. These results reveal that safety-relevant structure is shared across modalities and that textual refusal directions are a powerful and underexplored foundation for multimodal alignment.

As AI systems become more capable, training procedures that optimize for downstream outcomes risk introducing implicit agency: goal-directed behavior that designers never specified. We present a formal safety argument for the Scientist AI (SAI) Predictor, trained to approximate the Bayesian posterior conditioned on a dataset of "epistemically contextualized" natural-language statements. We argue that such a Predictor can honestly predict agents, actions, and their consequences without itself being an agent that selects outputs to achieve goals. This rests on data representation and on the training procedure. Epistemic contextualization of text distinguishes latent factual claims from communication acts, so expressions of goals are treated as evidence to be explained rather than drives the model adopts. With a posterior-seeking training objective, this is intended to drive the Predictor toward calibrated, cautious predictions. Training proceeds so downstream effects of deploying a prediction never serve as a reward signal; any agency the system needs is supplied by explicit scaffolding constrained by guardrails. We prove that, under assumptions on the training dynamics and on the argued sparsity of dangerous Predictors, the probability that training produces a Predictor whose guarded deployment carries residual harm above a specified threshold is small: a dangerous Predictor would have to underestimate harm in a coordinated way across many queries while such coordinated patterns are rare under the initialization distribution and receive no direct training signal. Safety and accuracy are jointly supported in this framework, since the constraints that secure accuracy are the same ones that make coordinated deception costly. These guarantees against misalignment and agency arising from within the Predictor itself do not preclude the use of the Predictor as part of an agentic system.

Large language models increasingly act as agents: they call tools, move money, delete records, and send messages on a user's behalf. To keep them safe, practitioners imported the chatbot-era recipe (train the model to refuse unsafe inputs) into the agentic setting, and treat the resulting capability loss as a manageable ``alignment tax.'' We argue this is a \emph{category error}. Refusal is a primitive for \emph{content safety}, where the harm is in the model's output and is therefore a learnable function of it. Agentic harm is different in kind: it lies not in any output but in the relation between the authority an action exercises and the authority the user granted, which is absent from the text the model sees. Importing content-safety methods into this regime does not trade capability for safety; it pays capability and buys negative security. We support this with three lines of evidence spanning the autonomy spectrum: defense-trained models learn surface patterns rather than intent; the same training collapses multi-step agents before any threat appears while leaving them exploitable; and even undefended frontier models exceed granted authority under ordinary use. We conclude that action safety cannot be installed in weights. It must be expressed as \emph{least privilege}, enforced \emph{outside} the model at the action boundary, and evaluated as \emph{action alignment} (a relational, deployment-conditioned property) rather than a refusal score.

In embodied intelligence, safety is a prerequisite for reliable robot deployment in the physical world. Current vision-language-action (VLA) models continue to advance toward general-purpose task capability, yet their embodied safety limits remain poorly understood. To address this gap, we introduce ForesightSafety-VLA, a diagnostic benchmark that makes safety the primary evaluation target for VLA systems. We define a 13-category safety taxonomy covering physical interaction safety (Safe-Core), instruction-side safety (Safe-Lang), and perception-side safety (Safe-Vis), and evaluate policies under three controlled dimensions of variation -- scene structure, language command, and visual observation -- so that failure sources can be diagnosed rather than hidden in a single aggregate score. Beyond binary task success, ForesightSafety-VLA measures process-level risk through cumulative safety cost (CC) and risk exposure time (RET), together with a four-quadrant decomposition of safe/unsafe success and failure. We instantiate 66 safety-augmented base scenarios in RoboTwin across 5 embodiments and report results on representative VLA baselines. Across the evaluated baselines, even the strongest policy incurs non-trivial safety cost and unsafe nominal success, while structure and visual variation induce substantially stronger safety degradation than ordinary language variation. These results suggest that embodied safety is tightly coupled to perception, grounding, and control competence rather than being reducible to post-hoc safety filtering alone.

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.

Today's reasoning models use thinking tokens to attain stronger performance on benchmarks than their instruction-tuned counterparts. It is also generally believed that this more "deliberative" mode should improve alignment and safety, by providing the model a safe space to consider whether its planned answer to a request violates its safety principles. We present evidence that this intuition is not always correct. Across frontier open-weight reasoning models spanning GPT-OSS, Qwen, Olmo, and Phi families, we find that the eventual refusal/compliance outcome is already strongly predictable via a trained head on the first token's hidden representation ($0.84$-$0.95$ AUROC and $\sim88\%$ balanced accuracy for predicting refusal/compliance) before any visible thinking. The thinking process turns out to be more akin to prefix completion than to deliberative revision, with the final outcome rarely changing after the first $\sim20\%$ of thinking, despite giving the appearance of deliberation at the text level ($\sim74\%$ of text-level deliberations occur when the response distribution is already locked to one refusal/compliance side). We also find that existing inference-time and training-based safety interventions, despite being motivated by the goal of inducing deliberation, largely shift model behavior toward over-refusal while suppressing already-scarce deliberation signals. Our results suggest that safety behavior in current reasoning models is much less deliberative than commonly assumed, and highlight the need for methods that induce real safety deliberation.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly automate complex tasks by integrating language models with external tools and environments. However, their autonomy poses significant safety risks: agents may execute destructive commands, leak sensitive data, or violate domain constraints. Existing safety approaches face a fundamental tradeoff: hand-crafted rules are interpretable but brittle, with overly conservative rules blocking safe operations (high false positives) while permissive rules miss unsafe behaviors (high false negatives). Neural classifiers lack the interpretability required for safety-critical deployments. We present AutoSpec, a framework that automatically evolves deployed expert-designed safety rules from user safe/unsafe annotations through counterexample-guided inductive synthesis (CEGIS) guided by inductive logic programming (ILP). Starting from the expert rules and a stream of annotated traces, AutoSpec iteratively evaluates rules, mines false-positive and false-negative counterexamples, uses ILP to learn which predicates discriminate them, generates candidate rule edits, and verifies candidates to select the best revision. The key insight is that ILP efficiently identifies predicates that appear frequently in false negatives but rarely in false positives (or vice versa), dramatically pruning the exponential search space of rule edits. This continues until convergence, producing interpretable rules that balance precision and recall. We evaluate AutoSpec on 291 execution traces spanning code execution and embodied agent domains. AutoSpec raises rule F1 to 0.98 and 0.93 across the two domains, achieving up to 94% false positive reduction while maintaining high recall, and converges within 4-5 iterations. The ILP-guided approach achieves up to 4.8x higher F1 than heuristic CEGIS. The learned rules are human-readable, auditable, and generalize to unseen scenarios.

Despite the impressive manipulation capabilities of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models, their operational safety under strict constraints remains largely unverified. To address this, we introduce a parametric safety benchmark to procedurally generate safety-critical scenarios with comprehensive stochasticity. To overcome the scalability bottlenecks of human teleoperation, we develop a novel keypose-driven data generation pipeline. Leveraging this infrastructure, we curate a large-scale dataset of 19,664 strictly collision-free demonstrations with extensive domain randomization. We then conduct a systematic cross-paradigm evaluation of eight VLA and two embodied foundation models. Our analysis reveals a critical generalization-safety tension: although high-diversity training fosters safer trajectories, task success remains fundamentally bottlenecked by sub-optimal trajectory synthesis and semantic misalignment. By providing a scalable pipeline, a robust dataset, and profound failure-mode insights, LIBERO-Safety establishes a crucial foundation for developing safe and reliable VLA models.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve widespread integration across diverse linguistic landscapes, ensuring their safety and alignment with regional normative values remains a critical challenge. Current safety mechanisms are predominantly optimized for English-centric frameworks, often failing to capture the unique socio-cultural sensitivities and localized categories of harm inherent to the Indic region. To address this gap, we introduce IndicGuard, a multilingual safety guard model and dataset for Indic languages. We construct a high-volume, culturally nuanced safety dataset encompassing ten major Indic languages, systematically curated to capture regional harms, sensitive socio-political contexts, and adversarial jailbreaks. Leveraging this corpus, we fine-tune a 4B-parameter instruction-tuned model based on Gemma-3-4B-IT to serve as a multilingual safety guardrail for real-time content moderation and policy compliance checking. Our empirical evaluations demonstrate that IndicGuard significantly enhances LLM robustness against localized vulnerabilities, achieving high moderation consistency across different conversational turns. Crucially, IndicGuard consistently outperforms the existing baseline model, CultureGuard, across evaluated languages. Finally, we demonstrate that our model effectively generalizes to low-resource Indic languages excluded from training, substantiating the structural robustness and cross-lingual transfer capabilities of the framework.

Deploying foundation models for robot control raises a central challenge: the expressive power that enables rich, multimodal perception also makes these models opaque and difficult to analyze formally, rendering them intractable for existing verification tools. In this paper, we present FEARL (Foundation-Enabled Assured Robot Learning), a framework that addresses this tension through a modular architectural decomposition. FEARL separates the policy into a large Controller (C) responsible for high-dimensional perception and task reasoning, and a small Safety module (S) that receives low-dimensional observations from dedicated safety sensors together with a bounded context embedding from C and produces the final action. Since many robot safety requirements, such as collision avoidance and workspace boundary constraints, can be expressed over these safety sensor observations, formal verification can be applied to S rather than to the full foundation-model backbone. This makes formal analysis tractable with existing tools while preserving the Controller's expressive power for task reasoning. To show that the decomposed policy remains capable of solving diverse tasks, we evaluate FEARL on three simulated robotic domains using multiple Controller backbones and training procedures, including pretrained off-the-shelf vision-language-action models. We further transfer the learned policy from one of our simulated tasks to a physical robot, suggesting that the low-dimensional safety interface supports practical sim-to-real transfer.

Coding agents based on large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable autonomous capabilities, but they also introduce significant safety and misuse risks during multi-turn interactions with external environments. Existing safety mechanisms mainly rely on external guardrails, which have a limited ability to perform fine-grained behavioral control during execution. Meanwhile, recent mechanistic interpretability methods for LLM safety are mostly confined to single-turn or jailbreak-style QA settings, limiting their ability to capture the evolving risk dynamics of multi-turn agent execution. In this paper, we investigate the safety of multi-turn coding agents from an internal perspective. We propose AgentLens (Mechanistic Subspace Intervention and Steering), a white-box defense framework that performs runtime safety detection and representation-level mitigation for coding agents. Unlike conventional agent guardrails, AgentLens detect harmful execution states from step-level hidden representations and mitigate unsafe behavior by intervening in a 10-dimensional subspace within a single layer. To support this research, we introduce the Mechanistic Agent Safety (MAS) benchmark, comprising comprehensively annotated multi-turn execution trajectories across 194 tasks using LLaMA-3.1-8B, Qwen-2.5-7B, and Gemma-2-9B. Extensive experiments show that AgentLens achieves strong safety detection performance, provides preliminary evidence for lookahead risk anticipation, and substantially reduces harmful actions of the coding agent, establishing a foundation for applying mechanistic interpretability to dynamic LLM agent safety. The code is available at: https://github.com/EddyLuo1232/AgentLens

This work investigates the safe exploration problem in reinforcement learning, where an agent must maximize cumulative performance while simultaneously satisfying safety constraints. This challenge becomes even more pronounced in long-horizon tasks, where existing safe methods face fundamental limitations due to compounding estimation errors and restricted exploration capabilities. To address this problem, we propose a method that combines a learnable world model with two complementary policies a high-level policy and a low-level policy to promote safety at both hierarchical levels. The high-level policy generates intermediate subgoals that bias exploration toward safe regions, while the low-level policy uses imagined rollouts in the learned world model to reduce unsafe behaviors when reaching these subgoals. The proposed method was evaluated on challenging long-horizon navigation and manipulation tasks with high-dimensional action spaces, where it significantly outperforms existing Safe RL baselines in both success rate and strong empirical constraint satisfaction, consistently meeting the prescribed safety budget across seeds, while prior approaches fail to effectively solve these complex long-horizon scenarios.

Road traffic accidents remain a critical global crisis, consistently serving as a primary driver of preventable mortality and severe injury. These incidents are frequently precipitated by human error, including overspeeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, and cognitive fatigue. To address this urgent public safety challenge, this paper presents an intelligent, Internet of Things (IoT)-based Accident Prevention and Detection System (APDS) designed to systematically mitigate driver risk and optimize post-collision emergency responses. The proposed framework features a multi-tiered architecture capable of executing continuous real-time telemetry monitoring, proactive local alarm triggering, and automated situational intervention. Furthermore, the system integrates automated emergency communication protocols that aggregate immediate spatial coordinates via GPS and dispatch targeted alerts to medical facilities in close proximity, thereby optimizing response times and reducing accident-related fatalities.

Robotic ultrasound scanning in real clinical environments requires both high-level clinical workflow reasoning and low-level closed-loop execution. Physicians natural-language instructions often contain implicit anatomical targets, procedural logic, image-quality requirements, and safety constraints, while execution is affected by patient motion, contact variations, and target drift. We propose a fast and slow hierarchical embodied ultrasound system for safe and interpretable robotic ultrasound assistance. The Slow Brain performs intent parsing and stage-wise task planning with knowledge augmentation from an API and handbook corpus, and generates executable plans through task-graph construction and structured plan verification. The Fast Brain fuses multimodal feedback, including ultrasound images, robot pose and force states, and patient-motion information, to refine local actions and perform image-quality-guided recovery behaviors. The system further integrates a Safety Shield and a hierarchical escalation policy to constrain risky actions and trigger replanning or human confirmation under persistent failures or safety-bound violations. Experiments on planning evaluation, closed-loop execution under dynamic perturbations, and safety-mechanism validation demonstrate that the proposed hierarchical design improves task success rates while reducing safety violations.

Existing safety mechanisms for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) face a fundamental trade-off between safety and utility. Model fine-tuning achieves robust safety but compromises general utility. Input-side safety guardrails offer a lightweight alternative, yet they suffer from severe over-refusal, indiscriminately blocking benign queries or those the model could have safely answered through refusal or advisory responses. We identify that the root cause of over-refusal lies in the input-aware paradigm: safety guardrails make safety decisions without considering whether the model itself is capable of generating safe responses. Usually, MLLMs already possess intrinsic safety mechanisms that can transform harmful inputs into harmless outputs, but input-side safety guardrails override this capability, degrading user experience. Motivated by this insight, we propose a paradigm shift toward output-aware safety guardrails. Our method operates within the model's hidden state space to predict whether the forthcoming generation will be unsafe before it is fully produced. By training a lightweight classifier via multi-instance contrastive learning on hidden state representations, our approach distinguishes between inputs that will lead to unsafe outputs and those that will not, even when the inputs themselves contain risky elements. This enables precise intervention only when the model's actual response would be harmful. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our output-aware safety guardrail matches the safety performance of existing methods while drastically reducing over-refusal, preserving the model's utility and built-in safety capabilities. Code is available at: https://github.com/kunzhan/OutGuard

Memory safety errors account for a large proportion of security bugs in systems written in C; modern languages such as Java and Rust prevent such bugs because they are memory-safe by design. To migrate systems to safer languages or identify memory errors, we must first determine how legacy code manipulates memory. This information is only represented implicitly in such code. In many cases, memory usage patterns are merely tedious for humans to figure out, rather than truly difficult. In this work, we ask if large language models (LLMs) can perform this task by having them synthesize annotations representing memory usage as specifications in CN, a hybrid testing/verification tool. Our tool, CNnotator, uses LLMs to automatically generate and test CN specifications. We find that current models are able to generate CN specifications for small-to-medium C programs, with the OpenAI o3 reasoning model achieving a 90% success rate on first attempts and 97% overall success, while the chat model GPT-4o correctly annotates 65% of first attempts. These results suggest AI-assisted annotation is becoming practical for real-world C codebases.

Malicious content generated from large language models (LLMs) could pose severe safety risks and ethical concerns. While existing LLM safety guardrails excel in English or multilingual settings, they lack adaptation to Chinese-specific regulatory policies, cultural context and linguistic nuances, failing to support fine-grained risk classification for diverse deployment needs. In this paper, we introduce a 5-macro, 31-micro category fine-grained risk taxonomy for Chinese scenarios, and build CHILLGuard: a dedicated Chinese LLM content safety guardrail. To address the critical scarcity of high-quality annotated Chinese safety data, we propose a scalable multi-stage data construction pipeline: we expand multi-source corpus via retrieval-augmented generation, generate implicit harmful samples through prompt engineering rewriting, and refine high-quality data via multi-model voting-based label calibration. Based on this, we build CHILLGuardTrain, a large-scale training set with 405,007 samples, and CHILLGuardTest, a rigorously curated annotated test set with 51,745 samples. We then train CHILLGuard on CHILLGuardTrain under a generator-classifier collaborative framework via Model-aware Direct Preference Optimization. Extensive experiments under multiple settings demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of CHILLGuard, e.g., a 15.92% improvement of F1 score over Qwen3Guard-8B-Strict on our benchmark. We will release our resources at https://github.com/cswbyu/CHILLGuard.

Computer-use agents are increasingly evaluated by whether they complete realistic desktop and web tasks. However, task success alone can miss failures in which an agent reaches the nominal goal through an unsafe shortcut. We introduce OSGuard, a dual-granularity benchmark suite for evaluating safety in computer-use agents under benign, unchanged user instructions. OSGuard contains an action-level benchmark for local guardrail decisions and a risk-augmented execution suite for end-to-end evaluation. The action-level benchmark consists of contextualized proposed actions labeled as allowed, unrelated, or unsafe, each judged relative to the original instruction and current interface state. The execution suite contains manually constructed OSWorld-derived task variants in which the original task remains achievable, but the environment is modified to introduce latent hazards such as destructive overwrites, etc. Each variant is paired with augmented evaluators that retain the original task-success criterion while adding explicit state-based safety invariants, allowing us to distinguish safe completions from unsafe completions that satisfy the nominal task objective. Our experimental results on OSGuard show that current multimodal guardrails can perform well on isolated action judgments, while risk-augmented execution exposes remaining gaps between local oversight and reliable end-to-end safety. This dual-granularity design enables more precise diagnosis of whether models can both recognize unsafe proposed actions and improve full-task safety when deployed as guardrails.

Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) offers a compelling route to decision-making for advanced autonomous vehicles (AVs), yet its trial-and-error nature makes it difficult to guarantee safety during training and to achieve both safety and efficiency at deployment. We propose a unified safe reinforcement learning (SRL) framework that integrates safe distance (SD), reward machines (RM), and mixture-of-experts (MoE), termed MoE-RM-SRL. For deployment, SD and RM jointly shape a rule-aware reward that encodes highway traffic regulations and stage-wise objectives, enabling safe and reliable behavior without sacrificing efficiency. For training, we introduce a sparsely gated MoE layer comprising up to 11 deep Q-networks (DQNs); an SD-based gating rule activates a minimal set of experts for lane-keeping and lane-changing, mitigating the instability, discontinuities, and impulsive transients commonly induced by switching between heterogeneous controllers (e.g., MPC/rule-based modules and learned policies). We implement the proposed architecture in CARLA and integrate it with a 6-DoF driver-in-the-loop virtual-reality (DiL-VR) platform. Experiments in stochastic two-lane traffic show that MoE-RM-SRL substantially improves safety and efficiency over state-of-the-art baselines, and the framework naturally extends to multi-lane driving as well as on-ramp merging and exiting scenarios.

With the advance of generative AI, the text-to-image (T2I) model has the ability to generate various contents. However, T2I models still can generate unsafe contents. To alleviate this issue, various concept erasing methods are proposed. However, existing methods tend to excessively erase unsafe concepts and suppress benign concepts contained in harmful prompts, which can negatively affect model utility. In this paper, we focus on eliminating unsafe content while maintaining model capability in safe semantic meaning interpretation by optimizing the concept erasing reward (CER) with reinforcement learning. To avoid overly content erasure, we introduce the Safe Adapter to project partial text embedding for efficient concept regulation in cross-attention layers. Extensive experiments conducted on different datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in alleviating unsafe content generation while preserving the high fidelity of benign images compared with existing state-of-the-art (SOTA) concept erasing methods. In terms of robustness, our method outperforms counterparts against red-teaming tools. Moreover, we showcase the proposed approach is more effective in emerging image-to-image (I2I) scenarios compared with others. Lastly, we extend our method to erase general concepts, such as artistic styles and objects. Disclaimer: This paper includes discussions of sexually explicit content that may be offensive to certain readers. All images used in this work are synthesized or from public datasets.