ARMOR: Aligning Secure and Safe Large Language Models via Meticulous Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11500v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 09:05:54 GMT
• Title: ARMOR: Aligning Secure and Safe Large Language Models via Meticulous Reasoning
• Authors: Zhengyue Zhao, Yingzi Ma, Somesh Jha, Marco Pavone, Chaowei Xiao,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable generative capabilities.<n>LLMs remain vulnerable to malicious instructions that can bypass safety constraints.<n>We propose a reasoning-based safety alignment framework, ARMOR, that replaces the ad-hoc chains of thought reasoning process with human-aligned, structured one.
• Score: 49.47193675702453
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable generative capabilities. However, their susceptibility to misuse has raised significant safety concerns. While post-training safety alignment methods have been widely adopted, LLMs remain vulnerable to malicious instructions that can bypass safety constraints. Recent efforts have introduced inference-time safety reasoning (system-2 alignment), where LLMs conduct a reasoning process to perform safety verification before final response. We show, however, that these checks are driven by ad-hoc reasoning that diverges from the structured human process, where they first discern a user's true intent, then evaluate the associated risk based on the true intent. Consequently, these defenses remain vulnerable to sophisticated jailbreak prompts that cloak harmful goals in seemingly benign language. To build secure and safe LLMs, we propose a reasoning-based safety alignment framework, ARMOR, that replaces the ad-hoc chains of thought reasoning process with human-aligned, structured one. At inference, ARMOR (1) detects likely jailbreak strategies, (2) extracts the user's core intent while discarding deceptive instructions, and (3) applies a policy-grounded safety analysis to the purified request. ARMOR is evaluated on adaptive jailbreak attacks and multiple safety benchmarks, and a test-time scaling is conducted to further improve its performance. Results demonstrate that ARMOR significantly enhances the robustness against state-of-the-art adaptive jailbreak attacks and outperforms recent reasoning-based aligned models across various safety benchmarks.

Related papers

• SafeKey: Amplifying Aha-Moment Insights for Safety Reasoning [76.56522719330911]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) introduce a new generation paradigm of explicitly reasoning before answering.<n>LRMs pose great safety risks against harmful queries and adversarial attacks.<n>We propose SafeKey to better activate the safety aha moment in the key sentence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T03:46:03Z)
• Why Not Act on What You Know? Unleashing Safety Potential of LLMs via Self-Aware Guard Enhancement [48.50995874445193]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across various tasks but remain vulnerable to meticulously crafted jailbreak attacks.<n>We propose SAGE (Self-Aware Guard Enhancement), a training-free defense strategy designed to align LLMs' strong safety discrimination performance with their relatively weaker safety generation ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T15:54:52Z)
• SafeMLRM: Demystifying Safety in Multi-modal Large Reasoning Models [50.34706204154244]
  Acquiring reasoning capabilities catastrophically degrades inherited safety alignment.<n>Certain scenarios suffer 25 times higher attack rates.<n>Despite tight reasoning-answer safety coupling, MLRMs demonstrate nascent self-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T06:53:23Z)
• Safety is Not Only About Refusal: Reasoning-Enhanced Fine-tuning for Interpretable LLM Safety [31.933503076797148]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that exploit weaknesses in traditional safety alignment.<n>We propose Reasoning-enhanced Finetuning for interpretable LLM Safety (Rational)<n>Rational trains models to engage in explicit safe reasoning before response.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T22:47:45Z)
• Improving LLM Safety Alignment with Dual-Objective Optimization [65.41451412400609]
  Existing training-time safety alignment techniques for large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks.<n>We propose an improved safety alignment that disentangles DPO objectives into two components: (1) robust refusal training, which encourages refusal even when partial unsafe generations are produced, and (2) targeted unlearning of harmful knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T18:01:05Z)
• Reasoning-to-Defend: Safety-Aware Reasoning Can Defend Large Language Models from Jailbreaking [26.812138599896997]
  We propose Reasoning-to-Defend (R2D), a novel training paradigm that integrates a safety-aware reasoning mechanism into Large Language Models' generation.<n>R2D forms safety pivot tokens as indicators of the safety status of responses.<n>We show that R2D effectively mitigates various attacks and improves overall safety, while maintaining the original performances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T15:48:46Z)
• STAIR: Improving Safety Alignment with Introspective Reasoning [44.780098674618614]
  We propose STAIR, a framework that integrates SafeTy Alignment with Itrospective Reasoning.<n>We show that STAIR effectively mitigates harmful outputs while better preserving helpfulness, compared to instinctive alignment strategies.<n>With test-time scaling, STAIR achieves a safety performance comparable to Claude-3.5 against popular jailbreak attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T15:02:55Z)
• Root Defence Strategies: Ensuring Safety of LLM at the Decoding Level [10.476222570886483]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated immense utility across various industries.<n>As LLMs advance, the risk of harmful outputs increases due to incorrect or malicious instruction prompts.<n>This paper examines the LLMs' capability to recognize harmful outputs, revealing and quantifying their proficiency in assessing the danger of previous tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T12:09:30Z)
• Refuse Whenever You Feel Unsafe: Improving Safety in LLMs via Decoupled Refusal Training [67.30423823744506]
  We introduce a novel approach, Decoupled Refusal Training (DeRTa), designed to empower LLMs to refuse compliance to harmful prompts at any response position.<n>DeRTa incorporates two novel components: (1) Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Harmful Response Prefix, which trains models to recognize and avoid unsafe content by appending a segment of harmful response to the beginning of a safe response, and (2) Reinforced Transition Optimization (RTO), which equips models with the ability to transition from potential harm to safety refusal consistently throughout the harmful response sequence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T09:36:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.