<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Safeguards on Omanshu Thapliyal</title><link>https://omanshuthapliyal.github.io/tags/safeguards/</link><description>Recent content in Safeguards on Omanshu Thapliyal</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 01:02:49 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://omanshuthapliyal.github.io/tags/safeguards/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Contraction can Help Safety Classifiers keep their Promise</title><link>https://omanshuthapliyal.github.io/blog/safety-classifier-ssm/</link><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 01:02:49 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://omanshuthapliyal.github.io/blog/safety-classifier-ssm/</guid><description>&lt;p>The code for this project can be found at: &lt;a href="https://github.com/omanshuthapliyal/contraction_constrained-safety-head">https://github.com/omanshuthapliyal/contraction_constrained-safety-head&lt;/a>.
And the paper can be found at: &lt;a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.02853">https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.02853&lt;/a>.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>A safety classifier can tell us that a prompt looks harmful.
That is useful. But it is perhaps not the question we should stop at.
Suppose a classifier sees a prompt and says that it is safe. Now suppose we change the prompt slightly. Perhaps we substitute a few words. Perhaps we phrase the same request differently. Perhaps, more abstractly, we nudge the token embeddings of the prompt by a very small amount.
Would the classifier still say safe?&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>