Hidden in the Request: Explaining Unethical LLM Compliance through Token Relevance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23264v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:52:05 GMT
• Title: Hidden in the Request: Explaining Unethical LLM Compliance through Token Relevance
• Abstract summary: This work systematically investigates instances where Large Language Models fail to exhibit ethical behavior.<n>We find that model performance degrades in the request-for-assistance-based form.<n>We hypothesize that this under-attribution contributes to harmful compliance.
• Score: 8.039202293739185
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Although Large Language Models (LLMs) are aligned to optimize for both helpfulness and harmlessness, these dual objectives may conflict, inevitably leading to alignment failures. This work systematically investigates instances where LLMs fail to exhibit ethical behavior. To understand the underlying mechanics of these vulnerabilities, we introduce a probing methodology that presents unethical scenarios to LLMs in three distinct structural modalities: objective classification tasks, subjective first-person statements, and direct requests for assistance. We find that model performance degrades in the request-for-assistance-based form. Using Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP), we trace this discrepancy to an attribution bias: the model places greater emphasis on benign task-framing tokens (e.g., "Can you help me...") than on tokens signaling the underlying unethical behavior (e.g., "without getting caught"), which we term cue-tokens. We hypothesize that this under-attribution contributes to harmful compliance. To test this, we introduce two LRP-guided decoding methods that steer generation toward trajectories more relevant to cue tokens. Empirical evaluations show that these interventions promote safer responses, supporting cue-token attribution's role in compliance failures.

Related papers

• Token-Level Diagnosis of Sycophancy in LLMs with Attribution-Guided Steering [19.708436827458744]
  Sycophancy refers to the tendency for large language models to match user beliefs at the cost of factual correctness.<n>We introduce the Authority Share Index (ASI), which measures the degree to which a model's decision is driven by authority-related text.<n>We find that sycophantic responses consistently direct more attention toward authority tokens than resistant ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-31T00:05:36Z)
• The Wrong Kind of Right: Quantifying and Localizing Misfired Alignment in LLMs [36.56059375552239]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) may reject warranted conclusions even when they are explicitly supported by context.<n>We call this failure mode misfired alignment, where alignment-induced changes cause LLMs to override explicit evidence.<n>To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce VETO, a benchmark consisting of 2,032 BBQ-derived contrastive pairs, and define a new metric, Misfired Alignment Rate (MAR), which measures on a 0 to 100 scale how often a model fails on a stereotype-related question but succeeds on its contrastive counterpart.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T03:53:42Z)
• Compliance versus Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models [46.26628756478016]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data.<n>We show that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores significantly drop during conflicting episodes.<n>Our findings establish that while LLM reasoning is anchored to concrete instances, active mechanistic interventions can effectively decouple logical schemata from data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T22:55:40Z)
• METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models [61.33372454250959]
  Contextual causal reasoning is a critical yet challenging capability for Large Language Models.<n>Existing benchmarks fail to ensure context consistency or cover the full causal hierarchy.<n>We pioneer METER to systematically benchmark LLMs across all three levels of the causal ladder.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T14:07:11Z)
• On the Paradoxical Interference between Instruction-Following and Task Solving [50.75960598434753]
  Instruction following aims to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human intent by specifying explicit constraints on how tasks should be performed.<n>We reveal a counterintuitive phenomenon: instruction following can paradoxically interfere with LLMs' task-solving capability.<n>We propose a metric, SUSTAINSCORE, to quantify the interference of instruction following with task solving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T17:48:56Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• When LLMs Copy to Think: Uncovering Copy-Guided Attacks in Reasoning LLMs [30.532439965854767]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become integral to automated code analysis, enabling tasks such as vulnerability detection and code comprehension.<n>In this paper, we identify and investigate a new class of prompt-based attacks, termed Copy-Guided Attacks (CGA)<n>We show that CGA reliably induces infinite loops, premature termination, false refusals, and semantic distortions in code analysis tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T17:21:36Z)
• Causal Prompting for Implicit Sentiment Analysis with Large Language Models [21.39152516811571]
  Implicit Sentiment Analysis (ISA) aims to infer sentiment that is implied rather than explicitly stated.<n>Recent prompting-based methods using Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in ISA.<n>We propose CAPITAL, a causal prompting framework that incorporates front-door adjustment into CoT reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T03:01:09Z)
• Critical Tokens Matter: Token-Level Contrastive Estimation Enhances LLM's Reasoning Capability [53.51560766150442]
  Critical tokens are elements within reasoning trajectories that significantly influence incorrect outcomes.<n>We present a novel framework for identifying these tokens through rollout sampling.<n>We show that identifying and replacing critical tokens significantly improves model accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-29T18:58:22Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Making Large Language Models Better Reasoners with Alignment [57.82176656663245]
  Reasoning is a cognitive process of using evidence to reach a sound conclusion. Recent studies reveal that fine-tuning LLMs on data with the chain of thought (COT) reasoning process can significantly enhance their reasoning capabilities. We introduce an textitAlignment Fine-Tuning (AFT) paradigm, which involves three steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T11:32:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.