Yuguang Zhou
Publications
AutoSpec: Safety Rule Evolution for LLM Agents via Inductive Logic Programming
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly automate complex tasks by integrating language models with external tools and environments. However, their autonomy poses significant safety risks: agents may execute destructive commands, leak sensitive data, or violate domain constraints. Existing safety approaches face a fundamental tradeoff: hand-crafted rules are interpretable but brittle, with overly conservative rules blocking safe operations (high false positives) while permissive rules miss unsafe behaviors (high false negatives). Neural classifiers lack the interpretability required for safety-critical deployments. We present AutoSpec, a framework that automatically evolves deployed expert-designed safety rules from user safe/unsafe annotations through counterexample-guided inductive synthesis (CEGIS) guided by inductive logic programming (ILP). Starting from the expert rules and a stream of annotated traces, AutoSpec iteratively evaluates rules, mines false-positive and false-negative counterexamples, uses ILP to learn which predicates discriminate them, generates candidate rule edits, and verifies candidates to select the best revision. The key insight is that ILP efficiently identifies predicates that appear frequently in false negatives but rarely in false positives (or vice versa), dramatically pruning the exponential search space of rule edits. This continues until convergence, producing interpretable rules that balance precision and recall. We evaluate AutoSpec on 291 execution traces spanning code execution and embodied agent domains. AutoSpec raises rule F1 to 0.98 and 0.93 across the two domains, achieving up to 94% false positive reduction while maintaining high recall, and converges within 4-5 iterations. The ILP-guided approach achieves up to 4.8x higher F1 than heuristic CEGIS. The learned rules are human-readable, auditable, and generalize to unseen scenarios.
Beyond Content Safety: Real-Time Monitoring for Reasoning Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning to solve complex tasks, yet the safety of the reasoning process itself remains largely unaddressed. Existing work on LLM safety focuses on content safety--detecting harmful, biased, or factually incorrect outputs -- and treats the reasoning chain as an opaque intermediate artifact. We identify reasoning safety as an orthogonal and equally critical security dimension: the requirement that a model's reasoning trajectory be logically consistent, computationally efficient, and resistant to adversarial manipulation. We make three contributions. First, we formally define reasoning safety and introduce a nine-category taxonomy of unsafe reasoning behaviors, covering input parsing errors, reasoning execution errors, and process management errors. Second, we conduct a large-scale prevalence study annotating 4111 reasoning chains from both natural reasoning benchmarks and four adversarial attack methods (reasoning hijacking and denial-of-service), confirming that all nine error types occur in practice and that each attack induces a mechanistically interpretable signature. Third, we propose a Reasoning Safety Monitor: an external LLM-based component that runs in parallel with the target model, inspects each reasoning step in real time via a taxonomy-embedded prompt, and dispatches an interrupt signal upon detecting unsafe behavior. Evaluation on a 450-chain static benchmark shows that our monitor achieves up to 84.88\% step-level localization accuracy and 85.37\% error-type classification accuracy, outperforming hallucination detectors and process reward model baselines by substantial margins. These results demonstrate that reasoning-level monitoring is both necessary and practically achievable, and establish reasoning safety as a foundational concern for the secure deployment of large reasoning models.