mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

HoloAegis: Frozen Representation, Topological Inference --- Minimally Parametric Safety Manifolds and Their Capability Boundaries for LLM Guardrails

arXiv 2608.08485 ↗First posted 9 Aug 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Current LLM safety guardrails face a fundamental tension: fine-tuning distorts pre-trained representations while generative judges incur prohibitive inference costs. We ask a complementary question: how far can safety be achieved through pure geometric reasoning over frozen representations, and where does it fail? We present HoloAegis, a minimally parametric topological inference framework that decouples representation from reasoning: an un-fine-tuned encoder maps text to the unit sphere S^{d-1}, and all decisions reduce to Gibbs-Boltzmann free-energy differences over pre-computed anchor centroids. We contribute a boundary-mapping study rather than a leaderboard claim. On a frozen three-benchmark protocol, HoloAegis (3.2 MB) statistically matches WildGuard-7B (14 GB) on toxicity (0.96 vs. 0.96), exceeds it on harmful behaviors (0.99 vs. 0.79), and cedes oversafety detection (0.62 vs. 0.98) -- while ShieldGemma-2B fails on indirect harms (0.34). These failure modes are complementary and mechanistically traceable: potential-difference scoring senses manifold clustering, whereas policy-conditioned LLM judging requires explicit taxonomy matching. We restate our Topological Boundary Stability conjecture in ratio form and validate it via reference-set bootstrap: anchor banks reduce score variance 4-15x and boundary displacement to approximately 0.44 + 0.23 sqrt(k/K) of the full-space estimator. Per-domain analysis further reveals that geometric separability tracks within-domain semantic homogeneity. Our results chart where geometric guardrails substitute for, and where they must defer to, LLM judges.

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 4 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Aug 2026.

Builds on

4 of 19 references.

References · 4

  1. 2017Prototypical Networks for Few-shot Learningcited by 3,001
  2. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
  3. 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Datasetcited by 828
  4. 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 477

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026A Dual-Hypothesis Reasoning Framework for LLM Guardrails
  2. 2026ConsisGuard: Aligning Safety Deliberation with Policy Enforcement in LLM Guardrails
  3. 2024R2-Guard: Robust Reasoning Enabled LLM Guardrail via Knowledge-Enhanced Logical Reasoning
  4. 2026PL-Guard: Probabilistic Logic Reasoning for LLM Guardrails
  5. 2025Saffron-1: Safety Inference Scaling
  6. 2026TRACE: An Evidence-Grounded Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Large Reasoning Models
  7. 2026Robust and Efficient Guardrails with Latent Reasoning
  8. 2025GuardReasoner: Towards Reasoning-based LLM Safeguards