Date
Publisher
arXiv
Ensuring the safety and value alignment of large language models (LLMs) is critical for their deployment. Current alignment efforts primarily target explicit risks such as bias, hate speech, and violence. However, they often fail to address deeper, domain-specific implicit risks and lack a flexible, generalizable framework applicable across diverse specialized fields. Hence, we proposed MENTOR: A MEtacognition-driveN self-evoluTion framework for uncOvering and mitigating implicit Risks in LLMs on Domain Tasks. To address the limitations of labor-intensive human evaluation, we introduce a novel metacognitive self-assessment tool. This enables LLMs to reflect on potential value misalignments in their responses using strategies like perspective-taking and consequential thinking. We also release a supporting dataset of 9,000 risk queries spanning education, finance, and management to enhance domain-specific risk identification. Subsequently, based on the outcomes of metacognitive reflection, the framework dynamically generates supplementary rule knowledge graphs that extend predefined static rule trees. This enables models to actively apply validated rules to future similar challenges, establishing a continuous self-evolution cycle that enhances generalization by reducing maintenance costs and inflexibility of static systems. Finally, we employ activation steering during inference to guide LLMs in following the rules, a cost-effective method to robustly enhance enforcement across diverse contexts. Experimental results show MENTOR's effectiveness: In defensive testing across three vertical domains, the framework substantially reduces semantic attack success rates, enabling a new level of implicit risk mitigation for LLMs. Furthermore, metacognitive assessment not only aligns closely with baseline human evaluators but also delivers more thorough and insightful analysis of LLMs value alignment.
Study at a glance
- Question: Can a metacognitive framework uncover and mitigate implicit, context-dependent safety risks in large language models?
- Setting and data: Benchmark of 3,000 queries across education, finance, and management in Chinese and English, plus external benchmarks, evaluated across 14 large language models.
- Method: System development and model evaluation comparing raw responses to rule-guided inference and metacognitive revision cycles.
Why it matters
Safety measures often fail against implicit, domain-specific risks whose harm depends on context rather than explicit keywords. Existing alignment methods face a trade-off, as generic safeguards lack specialized depth while customized retraining is costly.
Key findings
- Across 14 language models, the framework reduced the average jailbreak success rate from 57.8% on raw responses to 4.4% after two revision rounds.
- Human raters judged responses from the framework safer than raw responses in 86% of 900 pairwise comparisons.
- The defense retained general performance, decreasing overall utility scores by only 1.25% on an education benchmark and 0.83% on a financial benchmark.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
