Safety reasoning is a recent paradigm where LLMs reason over safety policies before generating responses, thereby mitigating limitations in existing safety measures such as over-refusal and jailbreak vulnerabilities. However, implementing this paradigm is challenging due to the resource-intensive process of creating high-quality policy-embedded chain-of-thought (CoT) datasets while ensuring reasoning remains accurate and free from hallucinations or policy conflicts. To tackle this, we propose AIDSAFE: Agentic Iterative Deliberation for Safety Reasoning, a novel data generation recipe that leverages multi-agent deliberation to iteratively expand reasoning on safety policies. A data refiner stage in AIDSAFE ensures high-quality outputs by eliminating repetitive, redundant, and deceptive thoughts. AIDSAFE-generated CoTs provide a strong foundation for supervised fine-tuning (SFT)-based safety training. Additionally, to address the need of preference data in alignment stages, such as DPO training, we introduce a supplemental recipe that uses belief augmentation to create distinct selected and rejected CoT samples. Our evaluations demonstrate that AIDSAFE-generated CoTs achieve superior policy adherence and reasoning quality. Consequently, we show that fine-tuning open-source LLMs on these CoTs can significantly improve safety generalization and jailbreak robustness while maintaining acceptable utility and over-refusal accuracy.

The contemporary LLMs are prone to producing hallucinations, stemming mainly from the knowledge gaps within the models. To address this critical limitation, researchers employ diverse strategies to augment the LLMs by incorporating external knowledge, aiming to reduce hallucinations and enhance reasoning accuracy. Among these strategies, leveraging knowledge graphs as a source of external information has demonstrated promising results. In this survey, we comprehensively review these knowledge-graph-based augmentation techniques in LLMs, focusing on their efficacy in mitigating hallucinations. We systematically categorize these methods into three overarching groups, offering methodological comparisons and performance evaluations. Lastly, this survey explores the current trends and challenges associated with these techniques and outlines potential avenues for future research in this emerging field.

In recent years, there has been a rapid proliferation of AI-generated text, primarily driven by the release of powerful pre-trained language models (PLMs). To address the issue of misuse associated with AI-generated text, various high-performing detectors have been developed, including the OpenAI detector and the Stanford DetectGPT. In our study, we ask how reliable these detectors are. We answer the question by designing a novel approach that can prompt any PLM to generate text that evades these high-performing detectors. The proposed approach suggests a universal evasive prompt, a novel type of soft prompt, which guides PLMs in producing “human-like” text that can mislead the detectors. The novel universal evasive prompt is achieved in two steps: First, we create an evasive soft prompt tailored to a specific PLM through prompt tuning; and then, we leverage the transferability of soft prompts to transfer the learned evasive soft prompt from one PLM to another. Employing multiple PLMs in various writing tasks, we conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the efficacy of the evasive soft prompts in their evasion of state-of-the-art detectors.

Manipulated news online is a growing problem which necessitates the use of automated systems to curtail its spread. We argue that while misinformation and disinformation detection have been studied, there has been a lack of investment in the important open challenge of detecting harmful agendas in news articles; identifying harmful agendas is critical to flag news campaigns with the greatest potential for real world harm. Moreover, due to real concerns around censorship, harmful agenda detectors must be interpretable to be effective. In this work, we propose this new task and release a dataset, NewsAgendas, of annotated news articles for agenda identification. We show how interpretable systems can be effective on this task and demonstrate that they can perform comparably to black-box models.