Safety for Whom? Boundary-Aware Self-Distillation for Controlled LLM Safety Refusal
A self-distillation safety framework tunes narrow-boundary refusals in Qwen3-8B, raising target-domain refusal to 84.75% while cutting over-refusal from 15.20% to 5.20%.
The paper formulates narrow-boundary safety, where deployments need refusals within specific topics rather than whole subjects, and proposes an offline self-generated framework with controlled topic generation, escalating retries, and harmful-benign boundary pairs. On political persuasion with Qwen3-8B, the method raised target-domain refusal from 9.47% to 84.75% and cut the mean unsafe-response rate across three broader benchmarks from 26.26% to 0.14%. Verified target-model responses reduced over-refusal from 15.20% to 5.20%, and boundary-pair data cut comply-side over-refusal on held-out pairs from 32.94% to 4.16%. Results show data composition controls the safety-usability trade-off and alignment should be evaluated on both sides of the refusal boundary.
- Introduces narrow-boundary safety: per-deployment refusal boundaries within shared topics
- Escalating retries cut prompts without accepted refusal traces from 19.88% to 0.20%
- Target-domain refusal on Qwen3-8B rises from 9.47% to 84.75%
- Boundary-pair data cuts over-refusal from 32.94% to 4.16% with minor unsafe-side drop
From the original article
1 min read at huggingface.coSafety alignment is usually posed as a topic-level question: is this subject harmful? Deployments ask a narrower one. A civics tutor and a public-sector assistant may share a base model yet need different boundaries inside the same topic, refusing targeted political manipulation while still answering factual questions about the same election.
By Alejo López-Ávila, Iker García-Ferrero, Jezabel Garcia · huggingface.co
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.