Making Your LLMs More Objective: Stabilizing LLM Safety Behavior Across Traits with Trait-Invariant Safety Tuning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11705v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 06:33:55 GMT
• Title: Making Your LLMs More Objective: Stabilizing LLM Safety Behavior Across Traits with Trait-Invariant Safety Tuning
• Abstract summary: Aligned large language models (LLMs) are expected to exhibit safety behavior based on the content of the user request.<n>We show that the same request can elicit substantially different safety decisions under different traits assigned in the system prompt.
• Score: 2.481804875781114
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Aligned large language models (LLMs) are expected to exhibit safety behavior based on the content of the user request: they should refuse unsafe requests and comply with safe ones. However, we show that the same request can elicit substantially different safety decisions under different traits assigned in the system prompt, a failure mode we call trait-induced safety variation. To measure this failure, we introduce refusal-based metrics: Trait-Induced Deviation measures dataset-level deviation from the no-trait baseline, while Trait-Induced Flip Rate measures whether the same request receives different safety decisions across traits. We then provide a representation-level analysis of the mechanism behind trait-induced safety shifts and find that traits perturb the model's safety representations within a low-dimensional subspace. To achieve trait-invariant safety, where safety behavior remains stable across traits, we introduce Trait-Invariant Safety Tuning (TIST), a simple yet effective self-distillation framework that aligns an LLM's trait-conditioned behavior with its no-trait behavior. Guided by our analysis, we further propose Trait-Subspace Neutralization (TraSN), an instantiation of TIST, which enforces invariance only within the identified trait subspace. Experiments show that TraSN improves trait-invariant safety and strengthens harmful-request safety while preserving general capability. Our results highlight traits as an important factor in LLM safety and robust model behavior.

Related papers

• Safe responses matter: Output-aware safety guardrail mitigate over-refusal in MLLMs [13.624659633750861]
  Existing safety mechanisms for large language models (MLLMs) face a fundamental trade-off between safety and utility.<n>We propose a paradigm shift toward output-aware safety guardrails.<n>Our method operates within the model's hidden state space to predict whether the forthcoming generation will be unsafe.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T12:09:13Z)
• Do Models Share Safety Representations? Cross-Model Steering for Safe Visual Generation [52.122731171289665]
  We introduce the first framework for cross-model safety steering.<n>Our pipeline never accesses unsafe data on the target side.<n>We evaluate our approach in text-to-image and text-to-video generation across diverse source-target model pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T18:00:04Z)
• Safe Transformer: An Explicit Safety Bit For Interpretable And Controllable Alignment [41.47485992177247]
  We propose Safe Transformer, a modular approach that augments pre-trained language models.<n>The safety bit serves as both an interpretable signal of the model's safety classification and a controllable switch.<n>In red-team benchmarks, Safe Transformer achieves near-zero Attack Success Rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T02:54:16Z)
• Token-level Data Selection for Safe LLM Fine-tuning [15.039068315115372]
  Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on custom datasets has become a standard approach for adapting these models to specific domains and applications.<n>Recent studies have shown that such fine-tuning can lead to significant degradation in the model's safety.<n>We propose a novel framework that quantifies the safety risk of each token by measuring the loss difference between a safety-degraded model and a utility-oriented model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T16:52:05Z)
• UpSafe$^\circ$C: Upcycling for Controllable Safety in Large Language Models [67.91151588917396]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress across a wide range of tasks, but remain vulnerable to safety risks such as harmful content generation and jailbreak attacks.<n>We propose UpSafe$circ$C, a unified framework for enhancing LLM safety through safety-aware upcycling.<n>Our results highlight a new direction for LLM safety: moving from static alignment toward dynamic, modular, and inference-aware control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T16:43:33Z)
• 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)
• Shape it Up! Restoring LLM Safety during Finetuning [65.75757313781104]
  Finetuning large language models (LLMs) enables user-specific customization but introduces critical safety risks.<n>We propose dynamic safety shaping (DSS), a framework that uses fine-grained safety signals to reinforce learning from safe segments of a response while suppressing unsafe content.<n>We present STAR-DSS, guided by STAR scores, that robustly mitigates finetuning risks and delivers substantial safety improvements across diverse threats, datasets, and model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T18:05:16Z)
• Superficial Safety Alignment Hypothesis [15.215130286922564]
  We propose the Superficial Safety Alignment Hypothesis (SSAH), which posits that safety alignment teaches an otherwise unsafe model to choose the correct reasoning direction.<n>We identify four types of attribute-critical components: Safety Critical Unit (SCU), Utility Critical Unit (UCU), Complex Unit (CU) and Redundant Unit (RU)<n>Our findings show that freezing certain safety-critical components during fine-tuning allows the model to retain its safety attributes while adapting to new tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T19:53:35Z)
• Safety Layers in Aligned Large Language Models: The Key to LLM Security [43.805905164456846]
  Internal parameters in aligned LLMs can be vulnerable to security degradation when subjected to fine-tuning attacks.<n>Our work uncovers the mechanism behind security in aligned LLMs at the parameter level, identifying a small set of contiguous layers in the middle of the model.<n>We propose a novel fine-tuning approach, Safely Partial- Fine-Tuning (SPPFT), that fixes the gradient of the safety layers during fine-tuning to address the security degradation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T04:35:59Z)
• SCANS: Mitigating the Exaggerated Safety for LLMs via Safety-Conscious Activation Steering [56.92068213969036]
  Safety alignment is indispensable for Large Language Models (LLMs) to defend threats from malicious instructions.<n>Recent researches reveal safety-aligned LLMs prone to reject benign queries due to the exaggerated safety issue.<n>We propose a Safety-Conscious Activation Steering (SCANS) method to mitigate the exaggerated safety concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T10:01:34Z)
• 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.