Mintong Kang, Stephen Rawls, Melissa Kazemi Rad, Jian Ni, Bo Li
Automatic red teaming increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) to iteratively diagnose failed attacks and propose improved adversarial prompts or injections. Although prior work strengthens this loop through prompt engineering and search-harness design, the mechanisms underlying its two core roles, criticism and attack proposal, has not been explored. To further investigate the core roles and therefore improve red teaming effectiveness, we disentangle two design choices: whether criticism is generated by the target session itself (self-criticism) or by a separately instantiated critic (external criticism), and whether that criticism is translated into the next attack by the target session (self-proposal) or by a separate attacker (external proposal). Through our analysis, we find that self-criticism is more effective because it is grounded in the target's live execution context, including observations, constraints, and available reasoning; removing reasoning reduces downstream attack success by 6%-17%. In contrast, self-proposal is substantially less effective because awareness of the adversarial objective induces explicit refusal and non-refusal sandbagging. These findings motivate a role-separated red-teaming approach: the target session diagnoses why an attack failed, while a separately instantiated attacker generates the next proposal. On DTAP-BENCH, spanning Telecom, Workflow, CRM, and Code domains, under both direct misuse and indirect threat models, as well as multiple agent frameworks, this configuration achieves 63.2% overall attack success rate (ASR), much higher than baselines. Our results show that effective automatic red teaming depends not only on model capability and search strategy, but also on how execution context and adversarial responsibility are distributed across model sessions.
Despite the remarkable capabilities of large language models (LLMs) across diverse applications, they remain vulnerable to generating content that violates safety regulations and policies. To mitigate these risks, LLMs undergo safety alignment; however, they can still be effectively jailbroken. Off-the-shelf guardrail models are commonly deployed to monitor generations, but these models primarily focus on detection rather than ensuring safe decoding of LLM outputs. Moreover, existing efforts lack rigorous safety guarantees, which are crucial for the universal deployment of LLMs and certifiable compliance with regulatory standards. In this paper, we propose a Claim-based Stream Decoding (CSD) algorithm coupled with a statistical risk guarantee framework using conformal analysis. Specifically, our CSD algorithm integrates a stream guardrail model to safeguard sequential claims generated by LLMs and incorporates a backtracking mechanism to revise claims flagged with high safety risks. We provide theoretical guarantees demonstrating that the CSD algorithm achieves the desired generation distribution subject to safety constraints. Furthermore, we introduce a generation risk certification framework and derive a high-probability upper bound on the safety risk of the proposed CSD algorithm. We prove that our method can asymptotically control safety risk to any desired level. Empirical evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the CSD algorithm compared to state-of-the-art safety decoding approaches. Additionally, we validate the soundness and tightness of the derived safety risk upper bound using realistic data.