Regime-Conditional Verification: Correctness Estimation for Adapting and Monitoring Safety Classifiers

Safety classifiers deployed with large language models often fail for two reasons: their decisions reflect the policy learned during training rather than the deployer's desired policy, and their performance degrades as deployment traffic evolves. We present Regime-Conditional Verification (RCV), a lightweight wrapper that adapts an off-the-shelf safety classifier without retraining it. RCV estimates, from the classifier's internal representations, the probability that each prediction disagrees with the deployer's policy, and selectively corrects predictions likely to be wrong. The same correctness estimates also provide a label-free signal for detecting distribution shift, enabling a maintenance loop that updates the correctness estimation layer and resorts to classifier fine-tuning only when necessary. Across three off-the-shelf safety classifiers and two benchmark datasets, RCV improves adherence to the deployer's policy in every classifier-dataset combination, catching up to 0.81 of previously missed unsafe content without modifying the underlying classifier. In a deployment study with ten attack campaigns, each a harm category held out of RCV's training, RCV detects every campaign in a dedicated injection panel; in the maintenance census most drift episodes are repaired without updating the classifier, and the fine-tune is reserved for the residual episodes that repair does not restore.

Online Shift Detection and Conformal Adaptation for Deployed Safety Classifiers

We present an online monitoring system for distributional shift in deployed safety classifiers, using calibrated sequential statistics to detect when a classifier has moved out of distribution. Upon detection, a conformal abstention layer adapts decision thresholds to recover a target error rate epsilon=0.1. In a pre-registered factorial evaluation (4 classifiers x 5 shift conditions x 20 seeds x 2 window sizes, 800 cells), the system achieves 86.6% valid detection (693/800, 95% CI [84.1%, 88.8%]) with mean latency of 39.5 steps. Detection holds across three ground-truth regimes: synthetic onset (86.6%), real temporal jailbreaks (85%, 17/20), and GCG adversarial attacks. Weighted conformal prediction recovers up to 39 pp of lost coverage for DeBERTa (ESS=46/300) but collapses for all other classifiers (ESS~300): logistic density ratio estimation achieves perfect source/target separability in high-dimensional embedding spaces, clipping all importance weights to the floor. DeBERTa shows a gradient from effective correction (paraphrase, ESS=46) to near-total collapse (adversarial suffix, ESS=206). PCA to 32 dimensions breaks the collapse, recovering 33 pp for Llama Guard and 21 pp for ShieldGemma. Variance decomposition reveals classifier (eta^2=0.243), shift type (eta^2=0.237), and their interaction (eta^2=0.185) all contribute substantially to detection latency variance (all p<0.001), indicating per-classifier monitoring profiles are necessary.

Boundary-targeted Membership Inference Attacks on Safety Classifiers

Safety classifiers are essential safeguards within generative AI systems, filtering harmful content or identifying at-risk users when interacting with large language models. Despite their necessity, these models are trained on sensitive datasets including discussions of self-harm and mental health, raising important, yet poorly understood, privacy concerns. Membership inference attacks (MIAs) allow adversaries to infer membership of examples used to train models. In this work, we hypothesize that identifying the examples on which the classifier is least confident are informative for an adversary to infer membership. This reflects a localized failure of generalization, where the model relies on memorization to resolve ambiguity in the training set. To investigate this, we introduce a new boundary-targeted selection strategy that identifies low confidence examples that amplify the signal of an examples membership within a training set. Our experimental results show that an adversary can recover 19\% of the conversations a safety classifier flagged as indicating user distress, at a 5\% false-positive rate, on a classifier fine-tuned for detecting a user who may require emotional support. This is $3.5$ times more than attacking using state-of-the-art MIA methods alone. Finally, we characterize the boundary laying examples and show that content-based filtering is ineffective for protection, and existing noise strategies can effectively mitigate susceptibility of these examples.