ReasoningShield: Content Safety Detection over Reasoning Traces of Large Reasoning Models

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are transforming the AI landscape with advanced reasoning capabilities. While the generated reasoning traces enhance model transparency, they can still contain unsafe content, even when the final answer appears safe. Existing moderation tools, primarily designed for question-answer (QA) pairs, are empirically ineffective at detecting hidden risks embedded in reasoning traces. After identifying the key challenges, we formally define the question-thought (QT) moderation task and propose ReasoningShield, the first safety detection model tailored to identify potential risks in the reasoning trace before reaching the final answer. To construct the model, we synthesize a high-quality reasoning safety detection dataset comprising over 8,000 question-thought pairs spanning ten risk categories and three safety levels. Our dataset construction process incorporates a comprehensive human-AI collaborative annotation pipeline, which achieves over 93% annotation accuracy while significantly reducing human costs. On a diverse set of in-distribution and out-of-distribution benchmarks, ReasoningShield outperforms mainstream content safety moderation models in identifying risks within reasoning traces, with an average F1 score exceeding 0.92. Notably, despite being trained on our QT dataset only, ReasoningShield also demonstrates competitive performance in detecting unsafe question-answer pairs on traditional benchmarks, rivaling baselines trained on 10 times larger datasets and base models, which strongly validates the quality of our dataset. Furthermore, ReasoningShield is built upon compact 1B/3B base models to facilitate lightweight deployment and provides human-friendly risk analysis by default. To foster future research, we publicly release all the resources.

OpenDeception: Benchmarking and Investigating AI Deceptive Behaviors via Open-ended Interaction Simulation

As the general capabilities of large language models (LLMs) improve and agent applications become more widespread, the underlying deception risks urgently require systematic evaluation and effective oversight. Unlike existing evaluation which uses simulated games or presents limited choices, we introduce OpenDeception, a novel deception evaluation framework with an open-ended scenario dataset. OpenDeception jointly evaluates both the deception intention and capabilities of LLM-based agents by inspecting their internal reasoning process. Specifically, we construct five types of common use cases where LLMs intensively interact with the user, each consisting of ten diverse, concrete scenarios from the real world. To avoid ethical concerns and costs of high-risk deceptive interactions with human testers, we propose to simulate the multi-turn dialogue via agent simulation. Extensive evaluation of eleven mainstream LLMs on OpenDeception highlights the urgent need to address deception risks and security concerns in LLM-based agents: the deception intention ratio across the models exceeds 80%, while the deception success rate surpasses 50%. Furthermore, we observe that LLMs with stronger capabilities do exhibit a higher risk of deception, which calls for more alignment efforts on inhibiting deceptive behaviors.