Lune

ACL Findings2026

Reverse Constitutional AI: A Framework for Controllable Toxic Data Generation via Probability-Clamped RLAIF

Yuan Fang, Yiming Luo, Aimin Zhou, Fei Tan

Abstract

Ensuring the safety of large language models (LLMs) requires robust red teaming, yet the systematic synthesis of high-quality toxic data remains under-explored. We propose Reverse Constitutional AI (R-CAI), a framework for automated and controllable adversarial data generation that moves beyond isolated jailbreak prompts. By inverting a harmless constitution into a constitution of toxicity and iteratively refining model outputs through a critiquerevision pipeline, R-CAI enables scalable synthesis of multi-dimensional adversarial data without human annotation. Optimizing solely for toxicity-related rewards, however, can lead to reward hacking and degraded semantic coherence. To address this challenge, we introduce probability clamping within reinforcement learning from AI feedback, which stabilizes adversarial optimization while preserving adversarial intent. Experiments demonstrate that R-CAI generates diverse, high-quality toxic data and that probability clamping substantially improves semantic coherence (15%) without sacrificing adversarial strength. Overall, R-CAI provides a fully automated framework for red teaming data generation and systematic safety evaluation of aligned language models. Resources available at https: //github.com/ZeroLoss-Lab/R-CAI.

Ask Lune

Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.

Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.

Questions to start from

Lune answers from

the full paper · related work

Get the answer

Free to start. No credit card required.

Builds on15

  1. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
  2. Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-FeedbackAman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 4,972 citations
  3. Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, Jacob SteinhardtNeurIPS 2023 · 2,230 citations
  4. Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!Xiangyu Qi, Yi Zeng, Tinghao Xie, Pin-Yu Chen et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,104 citations
  5. Scaling Laws for Reward Model OveroptimizationLeo Gao, John Schulman, Jacob HiltonICML 2023 · 963 citations

Related papers

  1. Curiosity-driven Red-teaming for Large Language ModelsZhang-Wei Hong, Idan Shenfeld, Tsun-Hsuan Wang, Yung-Sung Chuang et al.ICLR 2024 · 84 citations
  2. Constructing Highly Inductive Contexts for Dialogue Safety through Controllable Reverse GenerationZhexin Zhang, Jiale Cheng, Hao Sun, Jiawen Deng et al.EMNLP Findings 2022 · 3 citations
  3. AdvPrompter: Fast Adaptive Adversarial Prompting for LLMsAnselm Paulus, Arman Zharmagambetov, Chuan Guo, Brandon Amos et al.ICML 2025
  4. Red Teaming LLMs via Linguistic-Aware FuzzingShuai Yuan, Nian Luo, Jingling Sun, Yihao Huang et al.FSE 2026
  5. Does Safety Training of LLMs Generalize to Semantically Related Natural Prompts?Sravanti Addepalli, Yerram Varun, Arun Suggala, Karthikeyan Shanmugam et al.ICLR 2025
Dusk over the sea between two cliffs drawn in fine vertical lines