How Should We Enhance the Safety of Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on reasoning-intensive tasks such as mathematics and programming. However, their enhanced reasoning capabilities do not necessarily translate to improved safety performance-and in some cases, may even degrade it. This raises an important research question: how can we enhance the safety of LRMs? In this paper, we present a comprehensive empirical study on how to enhance the safety of LRMs through Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). Our investigation begins with an unexpected observation: directly distilling safe responses from DeepSeek-R1 fails to significantly enhance safety. We analyze this phenomenon and identify three key failure patterns that contribute to it. We then demonstrate that explicitly addressing these issues during the data distillation process can lead to substantial safety improvements. Next, we explore whether a long and complex reasoning process is necessary for achieving safety. Interestingly, we find that simply using short or template-based reasoning process can attain comparable safety performance-and are significantly easier for models to learn than more intricate reasoning chains. These findings prompt a deeper reflection on the role of reasoning in ensuring safety. Finally, we find that mixing math reasoning data during safety fine-tuning is helpful to balance safety and over-refusal. Overall, we hope our empirical study could provide a more holistic picture on enhancing the safety of LRMs. The code and data used in our experiments are released in https://github.com/thu-coai/LRM-Safety-Study.

The Superalignment of Superhuman Intelligence with Large Language Models

We have witnessed superhuman intelligence thanks to the fast development of large language models and multimodal language models. As the application of such superhuman models becomes more and more common, a critical question rises here: how can we ensure superhuman models are still safe, reliable and aligned well to human values? In this position paper, we discuss the concept of superalignment from the learning perspective to answer this question by outlining the learning paradigm shift from large-scale pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, to alignment training. We define superalignment as designing effective and efficient alignment algorithms to learn from noisy-labeled data (point-wise samples or pair-wise preference data) in a scalable way when the task becomes very complex for human experts to annotate and the model is stronger than human experts. We highlight some key research problems in superalignment, namely, weak-to-strong generalization, scalable oversight, and evaluation. We then present a conceptual framework for superalignment, which consists of three modules: an attacker which generates adversary queries trying to expose the weaknesses of a learner model; a learner which will refine itself by learning from scalable feedbacks generated by a critic model along with minimal human experts; and a critic which generates critics or explanations for a given query-response pair, with a target of improving the learner by criticizing. We discuss some important research problems in each component of this framework and highlight some interesting research ideas that are closely related to our proposed framework, for instance, self-alignment, self-play, self-refinement, and more. Last, we highlight some future research directions for superalignment, including identification of new emergent risks and multi-dimensional alignment.