Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper identifies a critical failure mode in inference-time pipelines that utilize learned safety models for output selection, termed "safety hacking," where outputs that are deemed feasible can still violate true safety criteria. The authors derive theoretical bounds indicating that as the number of sampled outputs increases, the likelihood of selecting unsafe outputs also rises, particularly when unsafe outputs dominate the reward distribution. Through experiments, they demonstrate that existing safety measures may not adequately mitigate this contamination, revealing significant challenges in scaling inference-time safety mechanisms.
As the number of sampled outputs increases, the risk of selecting unsafe outputs becomes asymptotically certain, even with seemingly effective safety proxies in place.
Inference-time pipelines often sample multiple outputs, filter them with a learned safety model, and return the proxy-feasible output with the highest learned reward. We show that this composition creates a two-stage failure: an imperfect safety proxy first contaminates the feasible set with unsafe outputs, and reward maximization can then amplify this residual contamination. We define \emph{safety hacking} as selecting an output that passes the learned constraint but violates the true safety criterion. For constrained Best-of-$N$ sampling, we derive finite-$N$ bounds governed by the joint upper reward tails of safe and unsafe outputs within the proxy-feasible set. If unsafe-but-feasible outputs have the heavier tail, safety hacking becomes asymptotically certain as $N$ grows, even when false-positive mass and average safety- and reward-proxy errors are arbitrarily small. We also show that policies within a bounded $\chi^2$ divergence from the proxy-feasible reference distribution admit an $N$-independent safety-hacking bound, and instantiate this general coverage-control principle with constrained pessimistic sampling. Coverage control limits amplification but cannot repair a contaminated feasible set: admitted unsafe outputs may still be favored, and regularized selection is not necessarily safer than constrained Best-of-$N$ for every reward proxy. Toy and language-model experiments characterize both contamination and its reward-tail amplification, which exposes an inherent difficulty in inference-time scaling with learned safety models.
