We present a theoretical framework showing that popular LLM alignment methods--including RLHF and its variants--can be understood as divergence estimators between aligned (safe or preferred) and unaligned (harmful or less-preferred) distributions. This perspective explains the emergence of separation in the latent space between safe and harmful prompts after alignment. As an application of our general divergence framework, we propose KLDO, a novel KL divergence-based alignment method, and empirically validate its effectiveness. We further show that using compliance-refusal datasets, rather than standard preference-based datasets, leads to stronger separation and improved safety alignment. Finally, to quantify the separation effect, we propose a distance-based metric in the prompt representation space, which also acts as a statistically significant indicator for model safety.

As Video Large Multimodal Models (VLMMs) rapidly advance, their inherent complexity introduces significant safety challenges, particularly the issue of mismatched generalization where static safety alignments fail to transfer to dynamic video contexts. We introduce SAFEVID, a framework designed to instill video-specific safety principles in VLMMs. SAFEVID uniquely transfers robust textual safety alignment capabilities to the video domain by employing detailed textual video descriptions as an interpretive bridge, facilitating LLM-based rule-driven safety reasoning. This is achieved through a closed-loop system comprising: 1) generation of SafeVid-350K, a novel 350,000-pair video-specific safety preference dataset; 2) targeted alignment of VLMMs using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO); and 3) comprehensive evaluation via our new SafeVidBench benchmark. Alignment with SafeVid-350K significantly enhances VLMM safety, with models like LLaVA-NeXT-Video demonstrating substantial improvements (e.g., up to 42.39%) on SafeVidBench. SAFEVID provides critical resources and a structured approach, demonstrating that leveraging textual descriptions as a conduit for safety reasoning markedly improves the safety alignment of VLMMs.

Large language models with Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures achieve efficiency and scalability, yet their routing mechanisms introduce safety alignment challenges insufficiently addressed by techniques developed for dense models. In this work, the MoE-specific safety risk of positional vulnerability--that safetyaligned behaviors rely on specific expert modules--is formalized and systematically analyzed. An analytical framework, SAFEX, is presented to robustly identify, characterize, and validate safety-critical experts via a stability-based expert selection procedure, and to decompose them into two functional groups: the Harmful Content Detection Group (HCDG), which specializes in identifying and recognizing harmful content within user inputs, and the Harmful Response Control Group (HRCG), which specializes in controlling and enforcing model behaviors to generate appropriate safety responses. Expert-level interventions are conducted to probe causality and to test mitigation. Targeted masking of SAFEX-selected experts reveals that safety behavior is highly concentrated. On Qwen3-30B-A3B, configured with 48 MoE-FFN layers and 128 experts per layer under top-8 routing (48 128 = 6,144 experts in total), disabling 12 selected experts reduces the refusal rate by 22%. In addition, lightweight adaptation is performed using LoRA under three configurations--the HRCG, the union of HCDG and HRCG, and all experts--and the resulting updates are composed through negative weight merging targeted at the HRCG, leading to improved refusal under adversarial prompts without full-model retraining. These results establish positional vulnerability as a distinct MoE-specific safety challenge and provide a practical, computeefficient pathway for expert-level safety interventions within routed architectures (https://github.com/Bearisbug/SAFEx).

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in high-stakes scenarios, yet their safety mechanisms often remain fragile. Simple jailbreak prompts or even benign fine-tuning can bypass internal safeguards, underscoring the need to understand the failure modes of current safety strategies. Recent findings suggest that vulnerabilities emerge when alignment is confined to only the initial output tokens. To address this, we introduce the notion of safety depth, a designated output position where the model refuses to generate harmful content. While deeper alignment appears promising, identifying the optimal safety depth remains an open and underexplored challenge.

Recent studies reveal that vision-language models (VLMs) become more susceptible to harmful requests and jailbreak attacks after integrating the vision modality, exhibiting greater vulnerability than their text-only LLM backbones. To uncover the root cause of this phenomenon, we conduct an in-depth analysis and identify a key issue: multimodal inputs introduce an modality-induced activation shift toward a "safer" direction compared to their text-only counterparts, leading VLMs to systematically overestimate the safety of harmful inputs. We refer to this issue as safety perception distortion. To mitigate such distortion, we propose Activation Shift Disentanglement and Calibration (ShiftDC), a training-free method that decomposes and calibrates the modality-induced activation shift to reduce its impact on safety.

Balancing helpfulness and safety (harmlessness) is a critical challenge in aligning large language models (LLMs). Current approaches often decouple these two objectives, training separate preference models for helpfulness and safety, while framing safety as a constraint within a constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP) framework. This paper identifies a potential issue when using the widely adopted expected safety constraints for LLM safety alignment, termed "safety compensation", where the constraints are satisfied on expectation, but individual prompts may trade off safety, resulting in some responses being overly restrictive while others remain unsafe. To address this issue, we propose Rectified Policy Optimization (RePO), which replaces the expected safety constraint with critical safety constraints imposed on every prompt. At the core of RePO is a policy update mechanism driven by rectified policy gradients, which penalizes the strict safety violation of every prompt, thereby enhancing safety across nearly all prompts. Our experiments demonstrate that RePO outperforms strong baseline methods and significantly enhances LLM safety alignment.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are essential for building generalpurpose AI assistants; however, they pose increasing safety risks. How can we ensure safety alignment of MLLMs to prevent undesired behaviors? Going further, it is critical to explore how to fine-tune MLLMs to preserve capabilities while meeting safety constraints. Fundamentally, this challenge can be formulated as a min-max optimization problem. However, existing datasets have not yet disentangled single preference signals into explicit safety constraints, hindering systematic investigation in this direction. Moreover, it remains an open question whether such constraints can be effectively incorporated into the optimization process for multimodal models. In this work, we present the first exploration of the Safe RLHF-V - the first multimodal safety alignment framework. The framework consists of: (I) BeaverTails-V, the first open-source dataset featuring dual preference annotations for helpfulness and safety, supplemented with multi-level safety labels (minor, moderate, severe); (II) Beaver-Guard-V, a multi-level guardrail system to proactively defend against unsafe queries and adversarial attacks. Applying the guard model over five rounds of filtering and regeneration significantly enhances the precursor model's overall safety by an average of 40.9%.

Recent studies reveal that vision-language models (VLMs) become more susceptible to harmful requests and jailbreak attacks after integrating the vision modality, exhibiting greater vulnerability than their text-only LLM backbones. To uncover the root cause of this phenomenon, we conduct an in-depth analysis and identify a key issue: multimodal inputs introduce an modality-induced activation shift toward a "safer" direction compared to their text-only counterparts, leading VLMs to systematically overestimate the safety of harmful inputs. We refer to this issue as safety perception distortion. To mitigate such distortion, we propose Activation Shift Disentanglement and Calibration (ShiftDC), a training-free method that decomposes and calibrates the modality-induced activation shift to reduce its impact on safety.

Though safety alignment has been applied to most large language models (LLMs), LLM service providers generally deploy a subsequent moderation as the external safety guardrail in real-world products. Existing moderators mainly practice a conventional full detection, which determines the harmfulness based on the complete LLM output, causing high service latency. Recent works pay more attention to partial detection where moderators oversee the generation midway and early stop the output if harmfulness is detected, but they directly apply moderators trained with the full detection paradigm to incomplete outputs, introducing a training-inference gap that lowers the performance. In this paper, we explore how to form a data-and-model solution that natively supports partial detection.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are essential for building general-purpose AI assistants; however, they pose increasing safety risks. How can we ensure safety alignment of MLLMs to prevent undesired behaviors? Going further, it is critical to explore how to fine-tune MLLMs to preserve capabilities while meeting safety constraints. Fundamentally, this challenge can be formulated as a min-max optimization problem. However, existing datasets have not yet disentangled single preference signals into explicit safety constraints, hindering systematic investigation in this direction. Moreover, it remains an open question whether such constraints can be effectively incorporated into the optimization process for multi-modal models. In this work, we present the first exploration of the Safe RLHF-V -- the first multimodal safety alignment framework. The framework consists of: (I) BeaverTails-V, the first open-source dataset featuring dual preference annotations for helpfulness and safety, supplemented with multi-level safety labels (minor, moderate, severe); (II) Beaver-Guard-V, a multi-level guardrail system to proactively defend against unsafe queries and adversarial attacks. Applying the guard model over five rounds of filtering and regeneration significantly enhances the precursor model's overall safety by an average of 40.9%.