mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Certifiable Safe RLHF: Semantic Grounding and Fixed Penalty Constraint Optimization for Safer LLM Alignment

arXiv 2510.03520 ↗First posted 3 Oct 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.SYcited by 0

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks

Abstract (arXiv)

Ensuring safety is a foundational requirement for large language models (LLMs). Achieving an appropriate balance between enhancing the utility of model outputs and mitigating their potential for harm is a complex and persistent challenge. Contemporary approaches frequently formalize this problem within the framework of Constrained Markov Decision Processes (CMDPs) and employ established CMDP optimization techniques. However, these methods exhibit two notable limitations. First, their reliance on reward and cost functions renders performance highly sensitive to the underlying scoring mechanism, which must capture semantic meaning rather than being triggered by superficial keywords. Second, CMDP-based training entails tuning dual-variable, a process that is both computationally expensive and does not provide any provable safety guarantee for a fixed dual variable that can be exploitable through adversarial jailbreaks. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Certifiable Safe-RLHF (CS-RLHF) that introduces a cost model trained on a large-scale corpus to assign semantically grounded safety scores. In contrast to the lagrangian-based approach, CS-RLHF adopts a rectified penalty-based formulation. This design draws on the theory of exact penalty functions in constrained optimization, wherein constraint satisfaction is enforced directly through a suitably chosen penalty term. With an appropriately scaled penalty, feasibility of the safety constraints can be guaranteed at the optimizer, eliminating the need for dual-variable updates. Empirical evaluation demonstrates that CS-RLHF outperforms state-of-the-art LLM model responses rendering at-least 5 times efficient against nominal and jail-breaking prompts

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 27 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2025.

Builds on

27 of 55 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul
  2. 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned23 Aug

Other references · 25

  1. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  2. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  3. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
  4. 2015High-Dimensional Continuous Control Using Generalized Advantage Estimationcited by 1,916
  5. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  6. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
  7. 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,235
  8. 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,023
  9. 2023SmoothLLM: Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attackscited by 434
  10. 2023Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Modelscited by 356
  11. 2023MultiModal-GPT: A Vision and Language Model for Dialogue with Humanscited by 255
  12. 2023LLM-grounded Diffusion: Enhancing Prompt Understanding of Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Large Language Modelscited by 242
13 more
  1. 2022Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Modelscited by 212
  2. 2024ArCHer: Training Language Model Agents via Hierarchical Multi-Turn RLcited by 212
  3. 2024JailBreakV: A Benchmark for Assessing the Robustness of MultiModal Large Language Models against Jailbreak Attackscited by 208
  4. 2024LLM Defenses Are Not Robust to Multi-Turn Human Jailbreaks Yetcited by 145
  5. 2025Is Best-of-N the Best of Them? Coverage, Scaling, and Optimality in Inference-Time Alignmentcited by 91
  6. 2023Safety Assessment of Chinese Large Language Modelscited by 82
  7. 2024Large Language Model Safety: A Holistic Surveycited by 56
  8. 2024Improving the Robustness of Large Language Models via Consistency Alignmentcited by 36
  9. 2024AdvWave: Stealthy Adversarial Jailbreak Attack against Large Audio-Language Modelscited by 33
  10. 2025Best-of-N through the Smoothing Lens: KL Divergence and Regret Analysiscited by 15
  11. 2025Enhancing Semantic Consistency of Large Language Models through Model Editing: An Interpretability-Oriented Approachcited by 14
  12. 2024On PI Controllers for Updating Lagrange Multipliers in Constrained Optimizationcited by 12
  13. 2022Conservative Distributional Reinforcement Learning with Safety Constraintscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Safety at One Shot: Patching Fine-Tuned LLMs with A Single Instance
  2. 2026Aligned but Fragile: Enhancing LLM Safety Robustness via Zeroth-Order Optimization
  3. 2026LSSF: Safety Alignment for Large Language Models through Low-Rank Safety Subspace Fusion
  4. 2025On Almost Surely Safe Alignment of Large Language Models at Inference-Time
  5. 2025Learning Natural Language Constraints for Safe Reinforcement Learning of Language Agents
  6. 2025Safety Alignment Depth in Large Language Models: A Markov Chain Perspective
  7. 2026Guardrails in Logit Space: Safety Token Regularization for LLM Alignment
  8. 2026Safety Alignment as Continual Learning: Mitigating the Alignment Tax via Orthogonal Gradient Projection