The DOI matches its DataCite record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Red Teaming Roadmap Towards System-Level Safety
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Model (LLM) safeguards, which implement request refusals, have become a widely adopted mitigation strategy against misuse. At the intersection of adversarial machine learning and AI safety, safeguard red teaming has effectively identified critical vulnerabilities in state-of-the-art refusal-trained LLMs. However, in our view the many conference submissions on LLM red teaming do not, in aggregate, prioritize the right research problems. First, testing against clear product safety specifications should take a higher priority than abstract social biases or ethical principles. Second, red teaming should prioritize realistic threat models that represent the expanding risk landscape and what real attackers might do. Finally, we contend that system-level safety is a necessary step to move red teaming research forward, as AI models present new threats as well as affordances for threat mitigation (e.g., detection and banning of malicious users) once placed in a deployment context. Adopting these priorities will be necessary in order for red teaming research to adequately address the slate of new threats that rapid AI advances present today and will present in the very near future.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Recent work demonstrates that models which refuse harmful single-prompt requests can nonetheless be induced into harmful outputs through carefully constructed multi-turn conversations (Wang et al. 2025).”
From Generative AI in child sexual exploitation and abuse: views from UK law enforcement (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al. 2025
In the citing paper
“Those insights speak directly to recent work on red-teaming and AI safety evaluation including Wang et al. (2025), arguing for prioritising multi-turn evaluation and Grossman et al. (2025) identifying the absence of lawful, well-governed pathways for CG-CSAM red-teaming.”
From Generative AI in child sexual exploitation and abuse: views from UK law enforcement (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al. (2025)
In the citing paper
“Multi-turn interactions matter for safety evaluation as some forms of harm emerge only across an extended exchange, even where each individual turn might appear unproblematic when viewed in isolation.”
From Generative AI in child sexual exploitation and abuse: views from UK law enforcement (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al. 2025
Citations
Cites
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208
LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation
Laban, P., Hayashi, H., Zhou, Y., & Neville, J. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 419 · cited 1×
“In contrast, users have more flexibility to shape model behaviors and undermine safeguards in fundamental ways through multi-turn conversations [43].”
Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress
Bengio, Y., Hinton, G., Yao, A., Song, D., Abbeel, P., Darrell, T., Harari, Y. N., Zhang, Y.-Q., Xue, L., Shalev-Shwartz, S., et al. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adn0117 · Cited by 349
Sharma, M., Tong, M., Mu, J., Wei, J., Kruthoff, J., Goodfriend, S., Ong, E., Peng, A., Agarwal, R., Anil, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.18837 · Cited by 7
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI in child sexual exploitation and abuse: views from UK law enforcement
Demeocq, C., Taylor, A., Ross, B., & McFeeters, A. (2026) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03176-6 · Cited by 1
Taylor, E. (2026) · Ethics & Human Research · doi:10.1002/eahr.70024
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, Z., Knight, C. Q., Kritz, J., Primack, W. E., & Michael, J.
- ORCID
- Wang, Zifan
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.05376
- OpenAlex
- W4417114733
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- threat modeling, AI safety, adversarial learning, malicious user detection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review