Large Reasoning Models Learn Better Alignment from Flawed Thinking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.00938v1
• Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 14:15:43 GMT
• Title: Large Reasoning Models Learn Better Alignment from Flawed Thinking
• Authors: ShengYun Peng, Eric Smith, Ivan Evtimov, Song Jiang, Pin-Yu Chen, Hongyuan Zhan, Haozhu Wang, Duen Horng Chau, Mahesh Pasupuleti, Jianfeng Chi,
• Abstract summary: Large reasoning models (LRMs) "think" by generating structured chain-of-thought (CoT) before producing a final answer.<n>We propose RECAP, a principled reinforcement learning (RL) method for post-training that explicitly teaches models to override flawed reasoning trajectories.
• Score: 56.08883934423522
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) "think" by generating structured chain-of-thought (CoT) before producing a final answer, yet they still lack the ability to reason critically about safety alignment and are easily biased when a flawed premise is injected into their thought process. We propose RECAP (Robust Safety Alignment via Counter-Aligned Prefilling), a principled reinforcement learning (RL) method for post-training that explicitly teaches models to override flawed reasoning trajectories and reroute to safe and helpful responses. RECAP trains on a mixture of synthetically generated counter-aligned CoT prefills and standard prompts, requires no additional training cost or modifications beyond vanilla reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), and substantially improves safety and jailbreak robustness, reduces overrefusal, and preserves core reasoning capability -- all while maintaining inference token budget. Extensive analysis shows that RECAP-trained models engage in self-reflection more frequently and remain robust under adaptive attacks, preserving safety even after repeated attempts to override their reasoning.

Related papers

• Constraint-Rectified Training for Efficient Chain-of-Thought [60.52883907721588]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has significantly enhanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>While longer reasoning traces can improve answer quality and unlock abilities such as self-correction, they also incur high inference costs and often introduce redundant steps, known as overthinking.<n>Recent research seeks to develop efficient reasoning strategies that balance reasoning length and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T02:13:45Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Backtracking Feedback [12.680874918250069]
  We introduce Reinforcement Learning with Backtracking Feedback (RLBF)<n>This framework advances upon prior methods, such as BSAFE.<n>We show that RLBF significantly reduces attack success rates across diverse benchmarks and model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T08:23:19Z)
• THINKSAFE: Self-Generated Safety Alignment for Reasoning Models [60.10077024249373]
  We propose ThinkSafe, a framework that restores safety alignment without external teachers.<n>Our key insight is that while compliance suppresses safety mechanisms, models often retain latent knowledge to identify harm.<n> Experiments on DeepSeek-R1-Distill and Qwen3 show ThinkSafe significantly improves safety while preserving reasoning proficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T16:31:02Z)
• Beyond SFT: Reinforcement Learning for Safer Large Reasoning Models with Better Reasoning Ability [18.931331452604066]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) extend large language models by generating explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>Existing safety alignment approaches rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) over safety-oriented long CoT datasets.<n>We investigate reinforcement learning (RL) as a complementary optimization framework for LRM safety training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T16:35:34Z)
• When Models Outthink Their Safety: Mitigating Self-Jailbreak in Large Reasoning Models with Chain-of-Guardrails [74.63933201261595]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities on complex reasoning tasks.<n>LRMs remain vulnerable to severe safety risks, including harmful content generation and jailbreak attacks.<n>We propose the Chain-of-Guardrail (CoG), a training framework that recomposes or backtracks unsafe reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T09:32:25Z)
• AdvChain: Adversarial Chain-of-Thought Tuning for Robust Safety Alignment of Large Reasoning Models [62.70575022567081]
  We propose AdvChain, an alignment paradigm that teaches models dynamic self-correction through adversarial CoT tuning.<n>Our work establishes a new direction for building more robust and reliable reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T04:27:23Z)
• Inducing Faithfulness in Structured Reasoning via Counterfactual Sensitivity [6.908972852063454]
  Large language models often generate a correct answer while relying on a flawed or irrelevant reasoning trace.<n>This paper introduces textbfCounterfactual Sensitivity Regularization (CSR), a novel training objective.<n>CSR improves faithfulness over standard fine-tuning and process supervision by up to 70 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T15:18:46Z)
• Post-Training Large Language Models via Reinforcement Learning from Self-Feedback [3.73824942136665]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce plausible but poorly-calibrated answers.<n>We present Reinforcement Learning from Self-Feedback (RLSF), a post-training stage that uses the model's own confidence as an intrinsic reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T15:46:26Z)
• Is Reasoning All You Need? Probing Bias in the Age of Reasoning Language Models [0.0]
  Reasoning Language Models (RLMs) have gained traction for their ability to perform complex, multi-step reasoning tasks.<n>While these capabilities promise improved reliability, their impact on robustness to social biases remains unclear.<n>We leverage the CLEAR-Bias benchmark to investigate the adversarial robustness of RLMs to bias elicitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T17:01:53Z)
• 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 [54.10710423370126]
  We propose Reasoning-to-Defend (R2D), a training paradigm that integrates a safety-aware reasoning mechanism into Large Language Models' generation process.<n>CPO enhances the model's perception of the safety status of given dialogues.<n>Experiments demonstrate that R2D effectively mitigates various attacks and improves overall safety, while maintaining the original performances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T15:48:46Z)
• Enhancing Model Defense Against Jailbreaks with Proactive Safety Reasoning [21.423429565221383]
  Large language models (LLMs) are vital for a wide range of applications yet remain susceptible to jailbreak threats.<n>We propose a novel defense strategy, Safety Chain-of-Thought (SCoT), which harnesses the enhanced textitreasoning capabilities of LLMs for proactive assessment of harmful inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T14:45:23Z)
• Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Models [64.60765108418062]
  We introduce Deliberative Alignment, a new paradigm that teaches the model safety specifications and trains it to explicitly recall and accurately reason over the specifications before answering.<n>We used this approach to align OpenAI's o-series models, and achieved highly precise adherence to OpenAI's safety policies, without requiring human-written chain-of-thoughts or answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T21:00:11Z)

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.