Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Shei Pern Chua

dblp:412/5634 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Security and privacy of machine learning · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Security and privacy of machine learning
red teaming
1.012026
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Tension Between Ethical Reasoning and Safety Alignment in LLMs · ACL (1) 2026
Security and privacy of machine learning › large language model alignment
safety alignment
1.012026
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Tension Between Ethical Reasoning and Safety Alignment in LLMs · ACL (1) 2026
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › normative reasoning
moral reasoning
0.312026
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Tension Between Ethical Reasoning and Safety Alignment in LLMs · ACL (1) 2026

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

multi-turn red-teaming · 2.0LoRA · 2.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Tension Between Ethical Reasoning and Safety Alignment in LLMs
abstract
Warning: This paper contains potentially offensive and harmful text.Large Language Model safety alignment predominantly operates on a binary assumption that requests are either safe or unsafe.This classification proves insufficient when models encounter ethical dilemmas, where the capacity to reason through moral trade-offs creates a distinct attack surface.We formalize this vulnerability through TRIAL, a multi-turn red-teaming methodology that embeds harmful requests within ethical framings.TRIAL achieves high attack success rates across most tested models by systematically exploiting the model's ethical reasoning capabilities to frame harmful actions as morally necessary compromises.Building on these insights, we introduce ERR (Ethical Reasoning Robustness), a defense framework that distinguishes between instrumental responses that enable harmful outcomes and explanatory responses that analyze ethical frameworks without endorsing harmful acts.ERR employs a Layer-Stratified Harm-Gated LoRA architecture, achieving robust defense against reasoning-based attacks while preserving model utility.
Shei Pern Chua, Zhen Leng Thai, Kai Jun Teh, Qibing Ren
ACL (1)1