Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Boyi Wei

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

6 papers
2 author rows

Possible papers

6

TMLR Journal 2025 Journal Article

An Adversarial Perspective on Machine Unlearning for AI Safety

  • Jakub Łucki
  • Boyi Wei
  • Yangsibo Huang
  • Peter Henderson
  • Florian Tramèr
  • Javier Rando

Large language models are finetuned to refuse questions about hazardous knowledge, but these protections can often be bypassed. Unlearning methods aim at completely removing hazardous capabilities from models and make them inaccessible to adversaries. This work challenges the fundamental differences between unlearning and traditional safety post-training from an adversarial perspective. We demonstrate that existing jailbreak methods, previously reported as ineffective against unlearning, can be successful when applied carefully. Furthermore, we develop a variety of adaptive methods that recover most supposedly unlearned capabilities. For instance, we show that finetuning on 10 unrelated examples or removing specific directions in the activation space can recover most hazardous capabilities for models edited with RMU, a state-of-the-art unlearning method. Our findings challenge the robustness of current unlearning approaches and question their advantages over safety training.

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Dynamic Risk Assessments for Offensive Cybersecurity Agents

  • Boyi Wei
  • Benedikt Stroebl
  • Jiacen Xu
  • Joie Zhang
  • Zhou Li
  • Peter Henderson

Foundation models are increasingly becoming better autonomous programmers, raising the prospect that they could also automate dangerous offensive cyber‑operations. Current frontier model audits probe the cybersecurity risks of such agents, but most fail to account for the degrees of freedom available to adversaries in the real world. In particular, with strong verifiers and financial incentives, agents for offensive cybersecurity are amenable to iterative improvement by would-be adversaries. We argue that assessments should take into account an expanded threat model in the context of cybersecurity, emphasizing the varying degrees of freedom that an adversary may possess in stateful and non-stateful environments within a fixed compute budget. We show that even with a relatively small compute budget (8 H100 GPU Hours in our study), adversaries can improve an agent's cybersecurity capability on InterCode CTF by more than 40\% relative to the baseline---without any external assistance. These results highlight the need to evaluate agents' cybersecurity risk in a dynamic manner, painting a more representative picture of risk.

ICLR Conference 2025 Conference Paper

On Evaluating the Durability of Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMs

  • Xiangyu Qi
  • Boyi Wei
  • Nicholas Carlini
  • Yangsibo Huang
  • Tinghao Xie
  • Luxi He
  • Matthew Jagielski
  • Milad Nasr

Many stakeholders---from model developers to policymakers---seek to minimize the risks of large language models (LLMs). Key to this goal is whether technical safeguards can impede the misuse of LLMs, even when models are customizable via fine-tuning or when model weights are openly available. Several recent studies have proposed methods to produce durable LLM safeguards for open-weight LLMs that can withstand adversarial modifications of the model's weights via fine-tuning. This holds the promise of raising adversaries' costs even under strong threat models where adversaries can directly fine-tune parameters. However, we caution against over-reliance on such methods in their current state. Through several case studies, we demonstrate that even the evaluation of these defenses is exceedingly difficult and can easily mislead audiences into thinking that safeguards are more durable than they really are. We draw lessons from the failure modes that we identify and suggest that future research carefully cabin claims to more constrained, well-defined, and rigorously examined threat models, which can provide useful and candid assessments to stakeholders.

ICLR Conference 2025 Conference Paper

SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal

  • Tinghao Xie
  • Xiangyu Qi
  • Yi Zeng 0005
  • Yangsibo Huang
  • Udari Madhushani
  • Kaixuan Huang
  • Luxi He
  • Boyi Wei

Evaluating aligned large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests is crucial for safe, policy-compliant deployments. Existing evaluation efforts, however, face three limitations that we address with **SORRY-Bench**, our proposed benchmark. **First**, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomies of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. For example, among the ten existing datasets that we evaluated, tests for refusals of self-harm instructions are over 3x less represented than tests for fraudulent activities. SORRY-Bench improves on this by using a fine-grained taxonomy of 44 potentially unsafe topics, and 440 class-balanced unsafe instructions, compiled through human-in-the-loop methods. **Second**, evaluations often overlook the linguistic formatting of prompts, like different languages, dialects, and more --- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. We supplement SORRY-bench with 20 diverse linguistic augmentations to systematically examine these effects. **Third**, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs (e.g., GPT-4) for evaluation, which can be computationally expensive. We investigate design choices for creating a fast, accurate automated safety evaluator. By collecting 7K+ human annotations and conducting a meta-evaluation of diverse LLM-as-a-judge designs, we show that fine-tuned 7B LLMs can achieve accuracy comparable to GPT-4 scale LLMs, with lower computational cost. Putting these together, we evaluate over 50 proprietary and open-weight LLMs on SORRY-Bench, analyzing their distinctive safety refusal behaviors. We hope our effort provides a building block for systematic evaluations of LLMs' safety refusal capabilities, in a balanced, granular, and efficient manner. Benchmark demo, data, code, and models are available through [https://sorry-bench.github.io](https://sorry-bench.github.io).

ICML Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Assessing the Brittleness of Safety Alignment via Pruning and Low-Rank Modifications

  • Boyi Wei
  • Kaixuan Huang
  • Yangsibo Huang
  • Tinghao Xie
  • Xiangyu Qi
  • Mengzhou Xia
  • Prateek Mittal
  • Mengdi Wang 0001

Large language models (LLMs) show inherent brittleness in their safety mechanisms, as evidenced by their susceptibility to jailbreaking and even non-malicious fine-tuning. This study explores this brittleness of safety alignment by leveraging pruning and low-rank modifications. We develop methods to identify critical regions that are vital for safety guardrails, and that are disentangled from utility-relevant regions at both the neuron and rank levels. Surprisingly, the isolated regions we find are sparse, comprising about $3$ % at the parameter level and $2. 5$ % at the rank level. Removing these regions compromises safety without significantly impacting utility, corroborating the inherent brittleness of the model’s safety mechanisms. Moreover, we show that LLMs remain vulnerable to low-cost fine-tuning attacks even when modifications to the safety-critical regions are restricted. These findings underscore the urgent need for more robust safety strategies in LLMs.

NeurIPS Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Evaluating Copyright Takedown Methods for Language Models

  • Boyi Wei
  • Weijia Shi
  • Yangsibo Huang
  • Noah A. Smith
  • Chiyuan Zhang
  • Luke Zettlemoyer
  • Kai Li
  • Peter Henderson

Language models (LMs) derive their capabilities from extensive training on diverse data, including copyrighted material. These models can memorize and generate content similar to their training data, potentially risking legal issues like copyright infringement. Therefore, model creators are motivated to develop mitigation methods that prevent generating particular copyrighted content, an ability we refer to as copyright takedowns. This paper introduces the first evaluation of the feasibility and side effects of copyright takedowns for LMs. We propose CoTaEval, an evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness of copyright takedown methods, the impact on the model's ability to retain uncopyrightable factual knowledge from the copyrighted content, and how well the model maintains its general utility and efficiency. We examine several strategies, including adding system prompts, decoding-time filtering interventions, and unlearning approaches. Our findings indicate that no method excels across all metrics, showing significant room for research in this unique problem setting and indicating potential unresolved challenges for live policy proposals.

v2026.09.13