When Models Outthink Their Safety: Mitigating Self-Jailbreak in Large Reasoning Models with Chain-of-Guardrails

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21285v2
• Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 11:06:45 GMT
• Title: When Models Outthink Their Safety: Mitigating Self-Jailbreak in Large Reasoning Models with Chain-of-Guardrails
• Authors: Yingzhi Mao, Chunkang Zhang, Junxiang Wang, Xinyan Guan, Boxi Cao, Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 74.63933201261595
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities on complex reasoning tasks but remain vulnerable to severe safety risks, including harmful content generation and jailbreak attacks. Existing mitigation strategies rely on injecting heuristic safety signals during training, which often suppress reasoning ability and fail to resolve the safety-reasoning trade-off. To systematically investigate this issue, we analyze the reasoning trajectories of diverse LRMs and uncover a phenomenon we term Self-Jailbreak, where models override their own risk assessments and justify responding to unsafe prompts. This finding reveals that LRMs inherently possess the ability to reject unsafe queries, but this ability is compromised, resulting in harmful outputs. Building on these insights, we propose the Chain-of-Guardrail (CoG), a training framework that recomposes or backtracks unsafe reasoning steps, steering the model back onto safe trajectories while preserving valid reasoning chains. Extensive experiments across multiple reasoning and safety benchmarks demonstrate that CoG substantially improves the safety of current LRMs while preserving comparable reasoning ability, significantly outperforming prior methods that suffer from severe safety-reasoning trade-offs.

Related papers

• Self-Guard: Defending Large Reasoning Models via enhanced self-reflection [54.775612141528164]
  Self-Guard is a lightweight safety defense framework for Large Reasoning Models.<n>It bridges the awareness-compliance gap, achieving robust safety performance without compromising model utility.<n>Self-Guard exhibits strong generalization across diverse unseen risks and varying model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T13:06:11Z)
• 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)
• Towards Safe Reasoning in Large Reasoning Models via Corrective Intervention [53.25106308403173]
  We show that existing methods overlook the unique significance of safe reasoning, undermining their trustworthiness and posing potential risks in applications if unsafe reasoning is accessible for and exploited by malicious users.<n>We propose Intervened Preference Optimization (IPO), an alignment method that enforces safe reasoning by substituting compliance steps with safety triggers and constructing pairs for preference learning with strong signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T07:41:09Z)
• ReasoningGuard: Safeguarding Large Reasoning Models with Inference-time Safety Aha Moments [18.198349215500183]
  ReasoningGuard injects timely safety aha moments to steer harmless while helpful reasoning processes.<n>Our approach outperforms seven existing safeguards, achieving state-of-the-art safety defenses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T08:35:10Z)
• ARMOR: Aligning Secure and Safe Large Language Models via Meticulous Reasoning [64.32925552574115]
  ARMOR is a large language model that analyzes jailbreak strategies and extracts the core intent.<n> ARMOR achieves state-of-the-art safety performance, with an average harmful rate of 0.002 and an attack success rate of 0.06 against advanced optimization-based jailbreaks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T09:05:54Z)
• 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)
• SafeChain: Safety of Language Models with Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Capabilities [21.317245896641136]
  Long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning generates structured intermediate steps, enhancing reasoning capabilities.<n>Current research on large language model (LLM) safety usually focuses on short-answer responses, overlooking the long CoT style outputs of LRMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T16:57:56Z)
• To Think or Not to Think: Exploring the Unthinking Vulnerability in Large Reasoning Models [56.19026073319406]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are designed to solve complex tasks by generating explicit reasoning traces before producing final answers.<n>We reveal a critical vulnerability in LRMs -- termed Unthinking -- wherein the thinking process can be bypassed by manipulating special tokens.<n>In this paper, we investigate this vulnerability from both malicious and beneficial perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T10:45:56Z)
• 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.