Safeguarding LLMs via Model-Agnostic Latent Safety Signals from Dark Knowledge
On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails also fits: Prompt injection and agent security
Abstract (arXiv)
LLMs have advanced rapidly, raising growing concerns about their safety. Recent work has proposed approaches to detect and defend against attacks including defenses at decoding stage that leverage models' hidden states. However, existing decoding-stage defenses suffer from two limitations. First, they introduce a trade-off between safety and over-refusal, where strengthening safety degrades the model's helpfulness on benign queries. Second, many of these methods rely on internal hidden states and are thus restricted to specific architectures, incurring substantial overhead and limited generalization across models. To address these limitations, we introduce LADE (Latent Safety Signals for Defense), which leverages latent safety signals extracted by contrasting harmful and benign queries from dark knowledge (i.e., information carried by the output probability distribution beyond its argmax) in the first-token output probability distribution. Our key insight is that, beyond surface-level refusal tokens, the dark knowledge in the first-token distribution contains latent safety signals, defined as tokens whose probabilities differ sharply between harmful and benign queries. We show that these signals consistently align across LLMs, forming a model-agnostic direction that emerges from safety alignment. LADE consists of three components: (1) Extracting Latent Safety Signals from Dark Knowledge, which selects top-k safety-discriminative tokens from the first-token probability distribution; (2) Tokenizer Mapping, which maps these tokens across different tokenizers to enable model-agnostic application; and (3) kNN-based Discrimination, which classifies queries via a k-Nearest Neighbors search over the mapped tokens. Across diverse LLMs and benchmarks, LADE is robust against a wide range of jailbreak attacks and lowers attack success rates while maintaining a competitive safety-utility trade-off.
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. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025aiXamine: Simplified LLM Safety and Security
- 2024Root Defence Strategies: Ensuring Safety of LLM at the Decoding Level
- 2026Safety Paradox: How Enhanced Safety Awareness Leaves LLMs Vulnerable to Posterior Attack
- 2025Monitoring Decomposition Attacks in LLMs with Lightweight Sequential Monitors
- 2025Safety is Not Only About Refusal: Reasoning-Enhanced Fine-tuning for Interpretable LLM Safety
- 2026SafeHarbor: Defining Precise Decision Boundaries via Hierarchical Memory-Augmented Guardrail for LLM Agent Safety
- 2026aiXamine: Unified Black-Box Evaluation of Cross-Dimensional Trade-offs in LLM Safety, Security, and Privacy
- 2026Expected Harm: Rethinking Safety Evaluation of (Mis)Aligned LLMs