Dynamic Guardian Models in AI Safety

• Dynamic guardian models are adaptive AI systems that enforce real-time, user-defined policies over language model outputs.
• They integrate a fast inference mode for binary policy compliance with chain-of-thought reasoning to provide detailed justifications.
• These models offer operational flexibility for regulatory, customer service, and domain-specific applications without requiring model retraining.

Dynamic guardian models are a class of AI safety and moderation systems designed for flexible, real-time enforcement of user-defined policies over the outputs of LLMs and conversational agents. Unlike traditional guardian models restricted to static harm taxonomies (such as violence or self-harm), dynamic guardian models evaluate conversational content against arbitrary, possibly domain-specific rule sets provided at runtime. This enables moderation and compliance across a spectrum of application domains, from customer service to regulatory compliance, with both fast policy violation detection and chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning for justifiable, interpretable outcomes. Dynamic guardian models constitute an advance toward context-adaptive safety architectures capable of regulating interactions according to customizable guidance rather than precompiled, hard-coded rules.

1. Model Architecture and Input/Output Protocol

Dynamic guardian models are instruction-finetuned LLMs (e.g., from the Qwen3 family), where each input comprises a structured policy or set of moderation rules and a target dialogue (user-agent interaction). The system’s output format is bifurcated to support two operational modes:

• Fast Inference Mode: Model produces a binary policy compliance label (e.g., “PASS”/“FAIL”) with an optional brief explanation, optimized for low-latency applications.
• Chain-of-Thought Mode: Model generates a detailed reasoning trace (enclosed in specified tags like > ...) articulating decision steps, followed by the final outcome label (e.g., <answer>FAIL</answer>).

The model’s reasoning traces are produced as natural language explanations, clarifying which rule was violated (if any) and why the specific output does or does not comply, enhancing interpretability.

The fine-tuning pipeline employs supervised learning (using datasets containing dynamic policy-dialogue-label triples) for both direct classification and CoT-augmented samples. Further, a GRPO (Generalized Reinforcement Policy Optimization) stage is applied, which combines reward-based advantage updates with KL divergence penalties to balance optimization and behavioral stability.

Mathematical expressions governing training are as follows:

• Standard Compliance Loss:

$$\mathcal{L}_{\text{C-SFT}}(\theta) = -\mathbb{E}_{(r, x, y) \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[ \log P_\theta(y \mid r, x) \right]$$

• Chain-of-Thought Supervision:

$$\mathcal{L}_{\text{CT-SFT}}(\theta) = -\mathbb{E}_{(r, x, t, y) \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[ \log P_\theta(t, y \mid r, x) \right]$$

• GRPO Policy Optimization:

$$J_{\text{GRPO}}(\theta) = \mathbb{E}_{(t, y) \sim \pi_k(\cdot|r,x)} \left\{ \min\left[ \frac{\pi(t, y|r, x)}{\pi_k(t, y|r, x)} A_{\pi_k}(r, x, t, y), \operatorname{clip}\left(\frac{\pi(t, y|r, x)}{\pi_k(t, y|r, x)}, 1-\epsilon, 1+\epsilon\right) A_{\pi_k}(r, x, t, y) \right] - \beta \mathrm{KL}\left[ \pi(\cdot|r, x) \| \pi_{\text{ref}}(\cdot|r, x) \right] \right\}$$

Where $A_{\pi_k}$ denotes the advantage function reflecting observed reward for the reasoning trace and compliance label.

2. Dynamic Policy Processing and User-Defined Rule Enforcement

Dynamic guardian models fundamentally differ from static solutions such as LlamaGuard by their ability to ingest and reason over unrestricted, runtime-specified policy sets. Policies can encode:

• Organizational restrictions (e.g., “Do not offer refunds unless verified by a supervisor”).
• Regulatory requirements (e.g., “If international travel is discussed, include a disclaimer on insurance limitations”).
• Content moderation (e.g., “Do not discuss religion except in educational/historical contexts”).

Policies are supplied as free-text or structured rule lists, which the model parses alongside the conversation. The system outputs a compliance outcome and, in CoT mode, a stepwise justification naming the rule and referencing relevant portions of the agent’s response or user input. This supports fine-grained policy enforcement, allowing rapid revision and testing of new rulesets without model retraining.

Key features:

• Arbitrary Rule Generalization: Any policy expressible in text can, in principle, be enforced.
• Real-Time Adaptation: Changes to policies are instantaneously offered to the guardian model as part of the input context.
• Compositionality: Multiple, possibly overlapping or conflicting rules can be processed in a single evaluation cycle, allowing nuanced moderation.

3. Operational Advantages Over Static Guardian Models

Dynamic guardian models maintain parity with static models on pre-specified harm categories while extending moderation to previously unrepresented application requirements. Empirical results demonstrate:

• Competitive Detection Accuracy: On standard harm detection benchmarks and dynamic compliance sets (e.g., DynaBench), dynamic models match the accuracy of frontier reasoning-based LLMs but with significantly lower computational cost in fast inference mode.
• Interpretability: Chain-of-thought traces enhance transparency, supporting downstream systems in automated recovery (e.g., chatbot self-correction) or human-in-the-loop review.
• Deployment Flexibility: Policy sets can be modified post-deployment; organizations need not retrain or redeploy the model to respond to updated operational requirements.

A summary table of key contrasts:

Feature	Static Guardian Model	Dynamic Guardian Model
Policy Scope	Fixed, hard-coded	Arbitrary, user-supplied
Justification	Label-only	Label + Explanation
Adaptability	Retraining required	Real-time via input
Typical Use Cases	General safety	Domain-specific, regulatory, business logic

4. Chain-of-Thought Reasoning and Interpretability

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is integrated both as a training signal and as an output modality. When invoked, the model produces:

• Intermediate reasoning, e.g., identifying which rule(s) are applicable, referencing dialogue history, and articulating the logical steps connecting policy and output.
• Final verdict, with structured tags for automated extraction.

This approach enhances trustworthiness and recoverability: flagged violations can be explained, and systems can programmatically remediate or escalate based on the model’s rationalization.

Example CoT output under a given insurance policy:

<think> – Rule 1: “If international travel is mentioned, advise about medical care coverage.” – User references travel to Europe, thus Rule 1 is triggered. – The agent’s last response did not mention overseas medical coverage. </think> <answer>FAIL</answer>

5. Performance, Efficiency, and Application Domains

Benchmarks indicate that dynamic guardian models achieve detection accuracy comparable to larger, reasoning-augmented systems on both static and dynamic policy detection tasks. Crucially:

• The non-CoT fast inference mode substantially reduces latency, supporting real-time safety intervention.
• Adaptability makes the model well suited for domains with rapidly evolving policy needs (e.g., financial services, clinical support, enterprise customer platforms).
• The approach allows multiple, overlapping rules (including conflicting or conditional policies) to be managed with high precision, a significant limitation in prior static designs.

6. Domain-Specific Examples and Real-Time Adaptation

Practical policies that dynamic guardian models can enforce include:

• Customized customer service protocols (e.g., “Only provide appointments during business hours”).
• Legal or compliance warnings (e.g., “Disclose terms if discussing medication dosages”).
• Topic-specific moderation (e.g., “No references to warfare except when reporting historical facts”).

In each scenario, policies may be added, removed, or adjusted dynamically. The guardian model immediately applies the new criteria during subsequent inference calls, supporting rapid iteration and compliance assurance.

---

Dynamic guardian models thus represent a paradigm shift in AI safety moderation, introducing flexible, policy-driven compliance that is both as accurate as static models on conventional harms and substantially more extensible to new, complex, and evolving operational requirements (Hoover et al., 2 Sep 2025). By combining architectural flexibility, interpretability through chain-of-thought reasoning, and low-latency real-time operation, dynamic guardian models are poised for deployment in settings where policy definition, interpretation, and enforcement must co-evolve with user and regulatory demands.