mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Improving LLM Reliability through Hybrid Abstention and Adaptive Detection

arXiv 2602.15391 ↗First posted 17 Feb 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) deployed in production environments face a fundamental safety-utility trade-off either a strict filtering mechanisms prevent harmful outputs but often block benign queries or a relaxed controls risk unsafe content generation. Conventional guardrails based on static rules or fixed confidence thresholds are typically context-insensitive and computationally expensive, resulting in high latency and degraded user experience. To address these limitations, we introduce an adaptive abstention system that dynamically adjusts safety thresholds based on real-time contextual signals such as domain and user history. The proposed framework integrates a multi-dimensional detection architecture composed of five parallel detectors, combined through a hierarchical cascade mechanism to optimize both speed and precision. The cascade design reduces unnecessary computation by progressively filtering queries, achieving substantial latency improvements compared to non-cascaded models and external guardrail systems. Extensive evaluation on mixed and domain-specific workloads demonstrates significant reductions in false positives, particularly in sensitive domains such as medical advice and creative writing. The system maintains high safety precision and near-perfect recall under strict operating modes. Overall, our context-aware abstention framework effectively balances safety and utility while preserving performance, offering a scalable solution for reliable LLM deployment.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 5 of its 9 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2026.

Builds on

5 of 9 references.

References · 5

  1. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
  2. 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,235
  3. 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 347
  4. 2023Learn to Refuse: Making Large Language Models More Controllable and Reliable through Knowledge Scope Limitation and Refusal Mechanismcited by 33
  5. 2025Cost-Saving LLM Cascades with Early Abstentioncited by 14

Built on by

Not cited yet.