mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

RISA: Response Inspection and Selective Actions for Refusal Calibration in Large Language Models

arXiv 2609.00790 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2026cs.CRcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Reliable refusal behavior requires Large Language Models (LLMs) to reject harmful prompts with only answering benign ones. Incorrect refusal behavior can either expose users to harmful responses or prevent users from obtaining useful answers. Training-time alignment improves refusal behavior by updating model parameters with safety data, but requires additional computation and training. In contrast, inference-time alignment aims to modify LLM behavior during inference without updating the underlying model parameters. Existing inference-time methods mainly rely on in-context safety prompting, activation steering, or decoding control. However, most of them intervene without first determining whether the initial response is already appropriate, potentially altering a correct refusal or a useful answer. Effective selective intervention therefore requires identifying prompt intent beyond sensitive keywords, covering semantic variations that fixed rules may miss, and adapting the verifier to different base models. To address these challenges, we propose Response Inspection and Selective Actions (RISA), an inference-time framework that inspects the initial response and selectively corrects refusal errors without updating the base model. RISA first uses fixed contextual rules to assign refusal scores to clear cases. For unmatched cases, it derives a refusal score from the final-layer prompt hidden state using a calibrated linear probe. To adapt to different base models, RISA separately calibrates the probe score, representation-support boundary, and action thresholds. At runtime, RISA combines the prompt score with the initial refusal status and applies an action policy to intervene only when necessary. Experimental results demonstrate that RISA improves refusal reliability while largely preserving model utility, offering a practical solution for response-aware refusal calibration in LLMs.

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 29 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.

Builds on

29 of 31 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Please refuse to answer me! Mitigating Over-Refusal in Large Language Models via Adaptive Contrastive Decoding18 Apr
  2. 2025LLMs Encode Harmfulness and Refusal Separately16 Jul
  3. 2025Just Enough Shifts: Mitigating Over-Refusal in Aligned Language Models with Targeted Representation Fine-Tuning6 Jul
  4. 2024SafeInfer: Context Adaptive Decoding Time Safety Alignment for Large Language Models18 Jun
  5. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction17 Jun
  6. 2024OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models31 May

Other references · 23

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  4. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  5. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
  6. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
  7. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  8. 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
  9. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
  10. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
  11. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
  12. 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,085
11 more
  1. 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,055
  2. 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 922
  3. 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Datasetcited by 860
  4. 2023Safe RLHF: Safe Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 656
  5. 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 505
  6. 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
  7. 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
  8. 2024SafeDecoding: Defending against Jailbreak Attacks via Safety-Aware Decodingcited by 247
  9. 2023SALMON: Self-Alignment with Instructable Reward Modelscited by 55
  10. 2024Navigating the OverKill in Large Language Modelscited by 44
  11. 2023Using In-Context Learning to Improve Dialogue Safetycited by 42

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Refusal Tokens: A Simple Way to Calibrate Refusals in Large Language Models
  2. 2025Beyond Over-Refusal: Scenario-Based Diagnostics and Post-Hoc Mitigation for Exaggerated Refusals in LLMs
  3. 2026From Refusal Tokens to Refusal Control: Discovering and Steering Category-Specific Refusal Directions
  4. 2025FalseReject: A Resource for Improving Contextual Safety and Mitigating Over-Refusals in LLMs via Structured Reasoning
  5. 2026Discern Truth from Falsehood: Reducing Over-Refusal via Contrastive Refinement
  6. 2025Mitigating Over-Refusal in Aligned Large Language Models via Inference-Time Activation Energy
  7. 2026Beyond Shallow Alignment: How Post-Training Methods Determine Refusal Circuits And Steering Robustness
  8. 2026Do Language Models Know When They'll Refuse? Probing Introspective Awareness of Safety Boundaries