ConsisGuard: Aligning Safety Deliberation with Policy Enforcement in LLM Guardrails

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.31073v1
• Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 09:42:08 GMT
• Title: ConsisGuard: Aligning Safety Deliberation with Policy Enforcement in LLM Guardrails
• Abstract summary: Reasoning-based guardrails improve safety moderation by generating explicit rationales before issuing final decisions.<n>A model may recognize a harmful intent in its reasoning but still predict a safe label, or issue an unsafe decision without policy-grounded justification.<n>We propose ConsisGuard, a consistency-aware framework for reasoning-based guardrails.
• Score: 57.25411733152009
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reasoning-based LLM guardrails improve safety moderation by generating explicit rationales before issuing final decisions. However, their rationales do not always lead to faithful enforcement: a model may recognize a harmful intent in its reasoning but still predict a safe label, or issue an unsafe decision without policy-grounded justification. We identify this safety-critical failure mode as the deliberation-to-enforcement gap. Unlike general chain-of-thought faithfulness, guardrail reliability requires policy execution consistency: the generated reasoning should be grounded in the safety policy, and the final decision should be entailed by that reasoning. We propose ConsisGuard, a consistency-aware framework for reasoning-based LLM guardrails. ConsisGuard performs Policy-to-Decision Trajectory Distillation and Functional Coupling Alignment, aligning the internal coupling between safety deliberation and decision enforcement. Experiments on prompt and response harmfulness detection benchmarks show that ConsisGuard improves detection performance while reducing policy execution failures. These results suggest that reliable reasoning-based guardrails require accurate faithful execution of safety policies.

Related papers

• Capability-Routed Guard: Defending Large Reasoning Models Against Reasoning-Centric Jailbreaks [6.260656015665084]
  We introduce Capability-Routed Guard (CRG), a model-agnostic inference-time guardrail for closed-source large reasoning models.<n>CRG reframes prompt defense as a capability-routing problem, separating executable intent from untrusted reasoning context.<n>It effectively mitigates diverse reasoning-centric jailbreaks while preserving benign utility and avoiding common over-refusal issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T03:40:06Z)
• DT-Guard: Intent-Driven Reasoning-Active Training for Reasoning-Free LLM Safety Guardrail [19.59614205209542]
  We present DT-Guard, a content safety guardrail model based on a Reasoning-Active Training, Reasoning-Free Inference paradigm.<n>The key idea is to use reasoning supervision during training while emitting only structured safety labels at inference time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T14:25:05Z)
• LPG: Balancing Efficiency and Policy Reasoning in Latent Policy Guardrails [41.04710068888387]
  We introduce Latent Policy Guardrail (LPG), a guardrail framework that learnssemantic latent deliberation over dynamic policies.<n>Across policy guardrail benchmarks, LPG-4B reaches 84.5% average safety accuracy and 77.9% F1 by compressing deliberation into just 10 latent tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T08:35:38Z)
• On-Policy Self-Evolution via Failure Trajectories for Agentic Safety Alignment [54.30690671490447]
  Existing safety-alignment signals are largely response-level or off-policy.<n>FATE transforms verifier-scored failures into repair supervision without expert demonstrations.<n>FATE reduces attack success rate by 33.5%, harmful compliance by 82.6%, and improves external trajectory-safety diagnosis by 6.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T09:56:28Z)
• Internalizing Safety Understanding in Large Reasoning Models via Verification [33.2377930782685]
  We propose a framework that internalizes safety specifications by training LRMs exclusively on safety verification tasks.<n>We demonstrate that learning to verify induces a strong generalization for response safety, significantly enhancing robustness against out-of-domain jailbreaks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-09T13:05:00Z)
• DRAFT: Task Decoupled Latent Reasoning for Agent Safety [59.46137757545185]
  We propose DRAFT (Task Decoupled Latent Reasoning for Agent Safety), a latent reasoning framework that decouples safety judgment into two trainable stages.<n>An Extractor distills the full trajectory into a compact continuous latent draft, and a Reasoner that jointly attends to the draft and the original trajectory to predict safety.<n>DRAFT consistently outperforms strong baselines, improving accuracy from 63.27% (LoRA) to 91.18% averaged over benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T07:45:14Z)
• Reasoning over Precedents Alongside Statutes: Case-Augmented Deliberative Alignment for LLM Safety [59.01189713115365]
  We evaluate the impact of explicitly specifying extensive safety codes versus demonstrating them through illustrative cases.<n>We find that referencing explicit codes inconsistently improves harmlessness and systematically degrades helpfulness.<n>We propose CADA, a case-augmented deliberative alignment method for LLMs utilizing reinforcement learning on self-generated safety reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T21:08:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Safety is Not Only About Refusal: Reasoning-Enhanced Fine-tuning for Interpretable LLM Safety [41.32331563680919]
  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)

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.