SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.28099

Speculative Probing: LLM Monitoring at Speculative-Decoding Cost

Abstract

Real-time classification during language model inference is valuable for safety filtering, behavioral analysis, and model monitoring, but current approaches force a trade-off between accuracy and efficiency. Hidden-state probes are fast but limited: they are either not context-aware: operating on a single vector and cannot model interactions across positions; or they are very costly: having dedicated classifier models (Llama Guard, Qwen Guard, LLM-as-judge) or performing computation on hidden states for all tokens and then pooling the results (MultiMax). This shows an intrinsic trade-off between efficiency and accuracy. However, we find that the speculative-decoding module in recent LLMs can be repurposed for efficient high-quality classification. By appending a trained soft prompt at the end of the target sequence, we can repurpose the speculative-decoding module into a sequence classifier. At inference time in a speculative-decoding pipeline, the KV cache is already in GPU memory, so classification adds negligible overhead. We evaluate on four classification tasks across four models (Qwen3.5-4B, 9B, 27B, MiniCPM4.1-8B). Our small probes consistently outperform zero-shot GPT-5.4-mini and, on multilingual prompt safety, match or beat specialized 8B safety classifiers (Qwen3Guard-Gen-8B, Llama-Guard-3-8B) without running a full LLM.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Collin Zhang, Tingwei Zhang, Vitaly Shmatikov. 2026-08-28. Speculative Probing: LLM Monitoring at Speculative-Decoding Cost. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28099

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

cs.CL