PsychoSafe: Eliciting Psychologically-Informed Refusals in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) routinely face requests that should be refused, creating a trade-off between helpfulness and harm prevention. However, refusals themselves can be helpful. In high-risk interactions involving crisis, coercion, or escalating intent, blunt non-compliance may prevent direct harm while still failing to support the needs of the person behind the request. We present PsychoSafe, a psychologically-informed refusal framework that reframes refusal as structured supportive communication grounded in evidence-based intervention strategies. To develop PsychoSafe, we construct a corpus of 8019 prompt-response pairs spanning five psychologically salient risk domains and apply prompting and parameter-efficient fine-tuning to Qwen 3.5 27B. On a balanced validation set of 500 prompts, evaluated with an LLM judge and validated through human ratings, PsychoSafe prompting improves overall refusal quality by 28.1% over a generic baseline, with particularly strong gains in external resource referral (+46.8%) and psychological grounding (+34.8%), while preserving downstream performance on non-refusal tasks. Fine-tuning achieves near-perfect refusal and resource-referral rates but reduces response relevance. Additional evaluations on SORRY-Bench and XSTest show strong in-domain robustness but limited out-of-domain generalization, suggesting that future work should diversify fine-tuning data to help models apply interventions selectively rather than schematically.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.
Builds on
14 of 41 references.
References · 14
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,258
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,106
- 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 505
- 2021Sentence-T5: Scalable Sentence Encoders from Pre-trained Text-to-Text Modelscited by 462
- 2024Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 248
- 2024Language Models are Homer Simpson! Safety Re-Alignment of Fine-tuned Language Models through Task Arithmeticcited by 105
- 2024ALERT: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Assessing Large Language Models' Safety through Red Teamingcited by 96
- 2024SafetyPrompts: a Systematic Review of Open Datasets for Evaluating and Improving Large Language Model Safetycited by 75
- 2024SG-Bench: Evaluating LLM Safety Generalization Across Diverse Tasks and Prompt Typescited by 58
- 2025LongCodeBench: Evaluating Coding LLMs at 1M Context Windowscited by 37
Built on by
Not cited yet.