Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Are Smarter LLMs Safer? Exploring Safety-Reasoning Trade-offs in Prompting and Fine-Tuning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.09673 v2 pith:SHX6WXL7 submitted 2025-02-13 cs.CL cs.AI

Are Smarter LLMs Safer? Exploring Safety-Reasoning Trade-offs in Prompting and Fine-Tuning

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords reasoningsafetyllmsenhancefine-tuninglanguagemodelsprompting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across various NLP benchmarks. However, excelling in complex tasks that require nuanced reasoning and precise decision-making demands more than raw language proficiency--LLMs must reason, i.e., think logically, draw from past experiences, and synthesize information to reach conclusions and take action. To enhance reasoning abilities, approaches such as prompting and fine-tuning have been widely explored. While these methods have led to clear improvements in reasoning, their impact on LLM safety remains less understood. In this work, we investigate the interplay between reasoning and safety in LLMs. We highlight the latent safety risks that arise as reasoning capabilities improve, shedding light on previously overlooked vulnerabilities. At the same time, we explore how reasoning itself can be leveraged to enhance safety, uncovering potential mitigation strategies. By examining both the risks and opportunities in reasoning-driven LLM safety, our study provides valuable insights for developing models that are not only more capable but also more trustworthy in real-world deployments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. When Models Outthink Their Safety: Unveiling and Mitigating Self-Jailbreak in Large Reasoning Models

    cs.AI 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Large Reasoning Models override their own initial safety recognition during multi-step reasoning in a failure mode called Self-Jailbreak, which Chain-of-Guardrail mitigates through targeted trajectory-level step inter...

  2. Reducing the Safety Tax in LLM Safety Alignment with On-Policy Self-Distillation

    cs.LG 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    On-policy self-distillation with teacher flip rate yields better safety-reasoning tradeoffs than off-policy or external-teacher baselines across model scales.

  3. Benchmark of Benchmarks: Unpacking Influence and Code Repository Quality in LLM Safety Benchmarks

    cs.CR 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Only 39% of LLM safety benchmark repositories run without modification, 6% include ethical warnings, and adoption tracks author prominence and runnability rather than code quality metrics.

  4. Efficiency vs. Alignment: Investigating Safety and Fairness Risks in Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning of LLMs

    cs.AI 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    Benign PEFT fine-tuning changes LLM safety and fairness: adapter-based methods (LoRA, IA3) preserve alignment better than prompt-based methods, and the base model strongly moderates outcomes.