arXiv:2603.13359v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Language models are commonly fine-tuned for safety alignment to refuse harmful prompts. One approach fine-tunes them to generate categorical refusa...
By Rishab Alagharu, Ishneet Sukhvinder Singh, Shaibi Shamsudeen, Zhen Wu, Ashwinee Panda
arXiv:2605. 21706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Safety-aligned language models are trained to refuse harmful requests, yet refusal behavior can be suppressed by steering their internal representations.
By Giorgio Piras, Raffaele Mura, Fabio Brau, Maura Pintor, Luca Oneto, Fabio Roli, Battista Biggio
The paper investigates how large language models decide whether to call external tools before the call is made, a step that has been largely overlooked in tool‑safety research. Using factorial interventions on input requests, the authors find that neutralizing the requested operation significantly reduces harmful admissions, and that a linear direction derived from this contrast predicts admission across most models. They also show that training models to refuse in plain text can lower unsafe admissions, indicating a partial link between written refusal and tool‑admission decisions.
By Aditya Nawal, Manit Baser, Mohan Gurusamy
The paper investigates how different post‑training methods—supervised fine‑tuning, reasoning‑augmented fine‑tuning, and preference optimization (ORPO)—affect the internal computation of refusal behavior in language models. Experiments on Llama‑3.1‑8B, Gemma‑2‑9B, and Qwen3‑8B show that reasoning‑augmented training consistently creates a distinct refusal computation across models, while the architecture influences the internal structure and steerability of refusal. None of the studied methods simultaneously achieve a distributed refusal mechanism, preserve general capability, and allow easy corrective edits, indicating that current post‑training approaches are not a fully reliable defense for safety-critical applications.
By Hoang Cuong Nguyen, Mark Dras, Usman Naseem
The paper investigates how large language models balance helpfulness and safety by refusing harmful queries while responding to benign ones. It decomposes safety-tuning responses into a boilerplate refusal statement and a rationale, finding that the statement causes false refusals by relying on superficial cues. Training on rationales alone reduces false refusals without compromising safety performance, suggesting that fine‑grained safety supervision is essential for better alignment.
By Minji Kim, Hyounghun Kim
The paper investigates whether large language models’ refusal behavior in text transfers to tool‑calling contexts. A benchmark of 2,304 prompts across four domains compares text‑only, standard tool‑enabled, and adversarially framed tool‑enabled settings, revealing that 10–52 % of harmful requests refused in chat still lead to unsafe tool calls. The authors identify a refusal‑associated direction in the models’ residual stream, showing that lower activation along this direction predicts unsafe calls, but restoring the signal only partially mitigates the issue and often suppresses benign tool use.
By Ekagra Gupta, Raj Saha, Aniekan-Abasi Inyang, Adam Al Gharib