Select any value within a category; different categories must all match. Counts include the other filters you have selected.Another 336papers have no tags yet and are not included in filtered results.
Another 336papers do not have a research type yet and are not included in these categories.
AbstractLabel inspection must be done in a space that has not been fitted to these labels, and judged by retrained models rather than detection scores.
The authors ask: can a defender without trusted data decide which training labels to keep, and how much clean data this destroys, and what the final model accuracy is.
AbstractThe authors say that collaboration changes takeoff from an individual capability threshold to a population threshold, so small-population evaluations are insufficient.
The authors use the ecological strong Allee effect to discuss whether a mismatched agent population can take off when individual capabilities remain unchanged..
AbstractThe authors claim HarmBench does not correspond to a single harmful refusal, and behaviors should be separated when comparing models.
This is a construct validity audit of HarmBench in HELM Safety, examining whether harmful refusal can be read as a single attribute when interpreting scores.
AbstractAcross five models, many correct verdicts are largely unchanged by deleting or replacing negation rules.
Use behavioral counterfactuals and activation probes to audit whether compliance rulings rely on the given rules. The authors aim to separate two kinds of seemingly identical correct rulings: those that use the given rules, and those obtained from case surface features or training patterns.
AbstractMetrics rise while expert scores fall: the optimum of the separable average is repetition, and the correction mainly rewrites the output projection.
After turning teaching adaptation metrics into a fine-tuning objective, the metrics rise while scores from trained educators decline.
AbstractThe authors claim that comparing judges should look at T, not just accuracy.
The authors audit whether LLM-as-a-Judge decisions can still be treated as actionable ground truth under repeated queries, swapped candidate order, and changed prompt formats.