Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research details
Back to research findings
LMVD-ID: cba592a9
Paper published September 4, 2026
Entry analyzed September 9, 2026
Paper-reported evidence
Confidence: Source-linked

The LMVD-ID is an internal research identifier, not an official CVE identifier.

Boilerplate safety tuning causes false refusals on benign requests

Controlled safety-tuning experiments link boilerplate refusal statements to unnecessary refusals of benign requests. Request-specific rationales improve benign compliance, with benchmark-dependent safety tradeoffs.

Read primary paperBibTeX citation

Paper-evaluated models(12)

Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B v0.3, Gemma 2 9B +9 more
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B v0.3
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Gemma 2 9B IT
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Description

Controlled safety-tuning experiments link boilerplate refusal statements to unnecessary refusals of benign requests. Request-specific rationales improve benign compliance, with benchmark-dependent safety tradeoffs.

Examples

See the primary study (opens in a new tab).

Impact

For Llama-3.1-8B, rationale-only versus statement-only training raises XSTest-Safe compliance from 0.48 to 0.71, while MaliciousInstruct harmful compliance rises from 0.02 to 0.06. The principal experiment uses 256 safety examples and automated judgments with human agreement checks. Results do not establish universally safer tuning.

Affected Systems

  • Safety fine-tuning pipelines; four principal base models, additional sizes, and released instruction-tuned comparisons are evaluated separately.

Mitigation Steps

  • Check harmful and benign compliance together for each model.
  • Prefer request-specific rationales over generic refusal boilerplate when evaluation supports the change.
  • Audit automated judgments for partial refusals and deflections.

Evidence

Research context and confidence

Evidence and verification
Paper-reported; independent reproduction is not documented.
Primary source plus a dedicated evidence section.
Severity
Not rated by this catalog.
Source and publication type
arXiv · Research preprint.
Peer-review status is not provided by this source.
Author and publication status
Author metadata is not stored; see the primary paper.
Threat model and attacker access
Not explicitly classified; consult the primary paper..
Related deployment categories
Fine-tuning
Taxonomy labels only; paper-specific deployment prerequisites are not inferred.
Affected systems
Safety fine-tuning pipelines; four principal base models, additional sizes, and released instruction-tuned comparisons are evaluated separately.

Research Paper

Refuse without Refusal: A Structural Analysis of Safety-Tuning Responses for Reducing False Refusals in Language Models

Primary source: arXiv. Findings are reported by the cited research and have not been independently verified.

View Paper