Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Think Before Refusal : Triggering Safety Reflection in LLMs to Mitigate False Refusal Behavior

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 2503.17882 v1 pith:G4KOUAHR submitted 2025-03-22 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords safetymodelsreflectionrefusalbehaviorfalsellmsbefore
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated that fine-tuning and human alignment can render LLMs harmless. In practice, such "harmlessness" behavior is mainly achieved by training models to reject harmful requests, such as "Explain how to burn down my neighbor's house", where the model appropriately declines to respond. However, this approach can inadvertently result in false refusal, where models reject benign queries as well, such as "Tell me how to kill a Python process". In this work, we demonstrate that prompting safety reflection before generating a response can mitigate false refusal behavior. Building on this finding, we introduce the Think-Before-Refusal (TBR) schema and conduct safety-aware instruction fine-tuning incorporating safety reflection. In an ablation study across 15 pre-trained models, we show that models fine-tuned with safety reflection significantly reduce false refusal behavior while maintaining safety and overall performance compared to those fine-tuned without safety reflection.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Pretraining Curricula Enable Selective Fine-tuning

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Imbalanced pretraining curricula disentangle task circuits in transformers, improving in-context learning and the selectivity of refusal fine-tuning relative to balanced training.

  2. Reasoning Up the Instruction Ladder for Controllable Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RLVR on ~7K verifiable system/user conflict examples teaches LLMs to prioritize higher-priority instructions, improving instruction-hierarchy and safety benchmarks.

  3. CARE: Decoding Time Safety Alignment via Rollback and Introspection Intervention

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    CARE uses guard-model detection, token-buffer rollback, and self-reflective prompting to reduce harmful responses while preserving response quality.

Pith tools