Juan Felipe Ceron Uribe

Chuan Guo, Juan Felipe Ceron Uribe, Sicheng Zhu et al.

Instruction hierarchy (IH) defines how LLMs prioritize system, developer, user, and tool instructions under conflict, providing a concrete, trust-ordered policy for resolving instruction conflicts. IH is key to defending against jailbreaks, system prompt extractions, and agentic prompt injections. However, robust IH behavior is difficult to train: IH failures can be confounded with instruction-following failures, conflicts can be nuanced, and models can learn shortcuts such as overrefusing. We introduce IH-Challenge, a reinforcement learning training dataset, to address these difficulties. Fine-tuning GPT-5-Mini on IH-Challenge with online adversarial example generation improves IH robustness by +10.0% on average across 16 in-distribution, out-of-distribution, and human red-teaming benchmarks (84.1% to 94.1%), reduces unsafe behavior from 6.6% to 0.7% while improving helpfulness on general safety evaluations, and saturates an internal static agentic prompt injection evaluation, with minimal capability regression. We release the IH-Challenge dataset (https://huggingface.co/datasets/openai/ih-challenge) to support future research on robust instruction hierarchy.

Nat McAleese, Rai Michael Pokorny, Juan Felipe Ceron Uribe et al.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is fundamentally limited by the capacity of humans to correctly evaluate model output. To improve human evaluation ability and overcome that limitation this work trains "critic" models that help humans to more accurately evaluate model-written code. These critics are themselves LLMs trained with RLHF to write natural language feedback highlighting problems in code from real-world assistant tasks. On code containing naturally occurring LLM errors model-written critiques are preferred over human critiques in 63% of cases, and human evaluation finds that models catch more bugs than human contractors paid for code review. We further confirm that our fine-tuned LLM critics can successfully identify hundreds of errors in ChatGPT training data rated as "flawless", even though the majority of those tasks are non-code tasks and thus out-of-distribution for the critic model. Critics can have limitations of their own, including hallucinated bugs that could mislead humans into making mistakes they might have otherwise avoided, but human-machine teams of critics and contractors catch similar numbers of bugs to LLM critics while hallucinating less than LLMs alone.