mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Refusing Intent, Not Form: Wrapper-Based Intent-Group Supervision for LLM Safety

arXiv 2608.13304 ↗First posted 13 Aug 2026cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails

Abstract (arXiv)

A common way to improve jailbreak robustness is to train on harmful requests rewritten as role-play, translation, or other forms. When used only for harmful requests, these forms may become refusal shortcuts, weakening unseen-attack robustness and increasing benign over-refusal. We propose Wrapper-Based Intent-Form Augmentation (WIFA), which applies shared wrapper families to harmful and benign requests and groups variants by intent, encouraging decisions based on underlying intent rather than wrapper cues. WIFA supports two independent routes: WIFA-Boost prioritizes safety through two-stage training, while A-GCRT enforces consistent decisions across wrappers to mitigate over-refusal. Across three model families and two harmful training sources, both routes consistently improve safety while largely retaining capability. On Qwen--AdvBench, WIFA-Boost raises SB-avg5 from 22.1% to 63.7%, the best among compared methods; A-GCRT raises it to 46.7% while reducing OR-Bench over-refusal from 25.7% to 17.4%, unlike reproduced defenses whose safety gains increase over-refusal. Across three AdvBench-trained backbones, both routes substantially reduce ASR on 15 unseen attack families and under model-adaptive GCG and RandomSearch. Overall, WIFA provides reusable intent-group supervision across models and training sources, supporting high safety through WIFA-Boost and substantial safety gains with less unnecessary refusal through A-GCRT.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 31 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2026.

Builds on

31 of 42 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Safety Instincts: LLMs Learn to Trust Their Internal Compass for Self-Defense1 Oct
  2. 2025FalseReject: A Resource for Improving Contextual Safety and Mitigating Over-Refusals in LLMs via Structured Reasoning12 May
  3. 2025LookAhead Tuning: Safer Language Models via Partial Answer Previews24 Mar
  4. 2025Safety is Not Only About Refusal: Reasoning-Enhanced Fine-tuning for Interpretable LLM Safety6 Mar
  5. 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMs26 Jun
  6. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction17 Jun
  7. 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep10 Jun

Other references · 24

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  4. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  5. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  6. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  7. 2019Invariant Risk Minimizationcited by 1,854
  8. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
  9. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
  10. 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,420
  11. 2019Distributionally Robust Neural Networks for Group Shifts: On the Importance of Regularization for Worst-Case Generalizationcited by 1,247
  12. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
12 more
  1. 2019Unsupervised Data Augmentation for Consistency Trainingcited by 1,060
  2. 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 1,026
  3. 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Datasetcited by 860
  4. 2023Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automaticallycited by 672
  5. 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 493
  6. 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
  7. 2024SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusalcited by 240
  8. 2023Do-Not-Answer: A Dataset for Evaluating Safeguards in LLMscited by 184
  9. 2023Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attacks Through Goal Prioritizationcited by 170
  10. 2024Intention Analysis Makes LLMs A Good Jailbreak Defendercited by 74
  11. 2024Refuse Whenever You Feel Unsafe: Improving Safety in LLMs via Decoupled Refusal Trainingcited by 69
  12. 2025Reasoning-to-Defend: Safety-Aware Reasoning Can Defend Large Language Models from Jailbreakingcited by 34

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Think Before Refusal : Triggering Safety Reflection in LLMs to Mitigate False Refusal Behavior
  2. 2026The Refusal--Compliance Tradeoff: A Large-Scale Safety Behavior Audit of Large Language Models
  3. 2026From Refusal Tokens to Refusal Control: Discovering and Steering Category-Specific Refusal Directions
  4. 2026Addressing Over-Refusal in LLMs with Competing Rewards
  5. 2025SafeConstellations: Mitigating Over-Refusals in LLMs Through Task-Aware Representation Steering
  6. 2025Beyond Over-Refusal: Scenario-Based Diagnostics and Post-Hoc Mitigation for Exaggerated Refusals in LLMs
  7. 2026LLMs Can Unlearn Refusal with Only 1,000 Benign Samples
  8. 2026Beyond Shallow Alignment: How Post-Training Methods Determine Refusal Circuits And Steering Robustness