Abstract
Over-refusal is a critical side effect of safety alignment in large language models (LLMs), causing harmless but superficially risky queries to be mistakenly rejected. Despite the effectiveness of existing mitigation methods, why safety-aligned LLMs may still reject harmless queries under correct safety supervision remains insufficiently understood. To address this gap, we analyze over-refusal through the lens of representation and optimization. We make two observations: 1) the representations of harmful and over-refusal samples are visually distinguishable at certain intermediate layers but increasingly overlap in deeper layers; and 2) harmful-sample gradients exhibit high intra-class similarity and concentrate in a low-rank subspace. Moreover, they are more strongly aligned with refusal-target gradients than with correct helpful-target gradients on over-refusal prompts. This imbalanced gradient coupling can bias over-refusal samples toward refusal, while the reduced apparent representational separation in deeper layers may make it more difficult for the model to maintain a clear boundary between harmful and over-refusal samples. To this end, we propose GOAL (Gradient Orthogonalization with contrAstive Learning), a safety-alignment framework for mitigating over-refusal. Specifically, GOAL consists of two components: 1) to prevent imbalanced gradient coupling from biasing the optimization of over-refusal samples toward refusal, we orthogonalize over-refusal gradients against the low-rank refusal subspace extracted from harmful gradients; and 2) to explicitly enhance the separation between harmful and over-refusal representations, we introduce a contrastive learning objective. Extensive experiments across multiple models and benchmarks demonstrate that GOAL effectively mitigates over-refusal while preserving safety performance and general capabilities.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.39802
