Reasoned Safety Alignment: Ensuring Jailbreak Defense via Answer-Then-Check

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11629v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 06:47:35 GMT
• Title: Reasoned Safety Alignment: Ensuring Jailbreak Defense via Answer-Then-Check
• Authors: Chentao Cao, Xiaojun Xu, Bo Han, Hang Li,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a novel safety alignment approach called Answer-Then-Check.<n>Our method enables models to directly answer the question in their thought and then critically evaluate its safety.<n>We find that training on a small subset of just 500 examples can achieve comparable performance to using the full dataset.
• Score: 32.82170313959032
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance in capabilities, ensuring their safety against jailbreak attacks remains a critical challenge. In this paper, we introduce a novel safety alignment approach called Answer-Then-Check, which enhances LLM robustness against malicious prompts by applying thinking ability to mitigate jailbreaking problems before producing a final answer to the user. Our method enables models to directly answer the question in their thought and then critically evaluate its safety before deciding whether to provide it. To implement this approach, we construct the Reasoned Safety Alignment (ReSA) dataset, comprising 80K examples that teach models to reason through direct responses and then analyze their safety. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach achieves the Pareto frontier with superior safety capability while decreasing over-refusal rates on over-refusal benchmarks. Notably, the model fine-tuned with ReSA maintains general reasoning capabilities on benchmarks like MMLU, MATH500, and HumanEval. Besides, our method equips models with the ability to perform safe completion. Unlike post-hoc methods that can only reject harmful queries, our model can provide helpful and safe alternative responses for sensitive topics (e.g., self-harm). Furthermore, we discover that training on a small subset of just 500 examples can achieve comparable performance to using the full dataset, suggesting that safety alignment may require less data than previously assumed.

Related papers

• EASE: Practical and Efficient Safety Alignment for Small Language Models [4.839980912290382]
  Small language models (SLMs) are increasingly deployed on edge devices, making their safety alignment crucial yet challenging.<n>We propose EASE, a novel framework that enables practical and Efficient safety alignment for Small languagE models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T19:46:54Z)
• Rethinking Safety in LLM Fine-tuning: An Optimization Perspective [56.31306558218838]
  We show that poor optimization choices, rather than inherent trade-offs, often cause safety problems, measured as harmful responses to adversarial prompts.<n>We propose a simple exponential moving average (EMA) momentum technique in parameter space that preserves safety performance.<n>Our experiments on the Llama families across multiple datasets demonstrate that safety problems can largely be avoided without specialized interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-17T23:46:36Z)
• UnsafeChain: Enhancing Reasoning Model Safety via Hard Cases [57.69882799751655]
  We release UnsafeChain, a safety alignment dataset constructed from hard prompts with diverse sources.<n>We fine-tune three large reasoning models (LRMs) and compare them against recent SafeChain and STAR-1.<n>UnsafeChain consistently outperforms prior datasets, with even a 1K subset matching or surpassing baseline performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T10:08:52Z)
• Think Before Refusal : Triggering Safety Reflection in LLMs to Mitigate False Refusal Behavior [59.20260988638777]
  We demonstrate that prompting safety reflection before generating a response can mitigate false refusal behavior.<n>In an ablation study across 15 pre-trained models, we show that models fine-tuned with safety reflection significantly reduce false refusal behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-22T23:35:49Z)
• Safe Vision-Language Models via Unsafe Weights Manipulation [75.04426753720551]
  We revise safety evaluation by introducing Safe-Ground, a new set of metrics that evaluate safety at different levels of granularity.<n>We take a different direction and explore whether it is possible to make a model safer without training, introducing Unsafe Weights Manipulation (UWM)<n>UWM uses a calibration set of safe and unsafe instances to compare activations between safe and unsafe content, identifying the most important parameters for processing the latter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T17:00:22Z)
• 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)
• Vulnerability Mitigation for Safety-Aligned Language Models via Debiasing [12.986006070964772]
  Safety alignment is an essential research topic for real-world AI applications.<n>Our study first identified the difficulty of eliminating such vulnerabilities without sacrificing the model's helpfulness.<n>Our method could enhance the model's helpfulness while maintaining safety, thus improving the trade-off-front.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T09:31:54Z)
• OpenAI o1 System Card [274.83891368890977]
  The o1 model series is trained with large-scale reinforcement learning to reason using chain of thought.<n>This report outlines the safety work carried out for the OpenAI o1 and OpenAI o1-mini models, including safety evaluations, external red teaming, and Preparedness Framework evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-21T18:04:31Z)
• What Makes and Breaks Safety Fine-tuning? A Mechanistic Study [64.9691741899956]
  Safety fine-tuning helps align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences for their safe deployment. We design a synthetic data generation framework that captures salient aspects of an unsafe input. Using this, we investigate three well-known safety fine-tuning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-14T16:12:57Z)
• 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)
• On Prompt-Driven Safeguarding for Large Language Models [172.13943777203377]
  We find that in the representation space, the input queries are typically moved by safety prompts in a "higher-refusal" direction. Inspired by these findings, we propose a method for safety prompt optimization, namely DRO. Treating a safety prompt as continuous, trainable embeddings, DRO learns to move the queries' representations along or opposite the refusal direction, depending on their harmfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T17:28:24Z)

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.