# Beyond Safe Answers: Segment-Aware Listwise Alignment for Reasoning Safety in Large Reasoning Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15517 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.15517/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 6 of its 51 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/safety-alignment-and-jailbreak-attacks/)
- LLM safety and security / [Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails](https://mlsanity.com/safety/safety-alignment-refusal-and-guardrails/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Safety Tax: Safety Alignment Makes Your Large Reasoning Models Less Reasonable](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00555/) (2025)
- [RealSafe-R1: Safety-Aligned DeepSeek-R1 without Compromising Reasoning Capability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10081/) (2025)
- [Mitigating Safety Tax via Distribution-Grounded Refinement in Large Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02136/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) pose a dual-surface safety challenge: both intermediate reasoning traces and final answers can contain harmful content. Existing alignment methods often operate at the whole-response level, allowing unsafe reasoning to be masked by a safe-looking final answer. We propose Segment-aware Listwise Target DPO (SaLT-DPO), which addresses this gap through three mechanisms: (1) segment-aware listwise alignment that decomposes responses into reasoning and answer segments, independently scores each segment's safety, and aligns length-normalized segment rewards with soft target distributions over multiple candidates; (2) joint safety coherence regularization that applies a weakest-link principle to promote safety consistency across both segments; and (3) utility anchoring on benign prompts to mitigate over-refusal and reasoning degradation. Experiments on three LRMs show that SaLT-DPO consistently reduces unsafe rates for both reasoning and answer segments while mitigating degradation in benign compliance and preserving general reasoning performance. Ablation studies demonstrate the complementary contributions of its components.