Safety alignment aims to ensure that large language models (LLMs) refuse harmful requests by post-training on harmful queries paired with refusal answers. Although safety alignment is widely adopted in industry, the overrefusal problem where aligned LLMs also reject benign queries after safety alignment post-training, remains insufficiently studied. Such an issue degrades the usability of safety alignment in real-world applications. In this paper, we examine how overrefusal arises under safety alignment, and propose a mitigation strategy inspired by our findings. We define refusal triggers as linguistic cues in the training data that elicit refusal responses, safety alignment encourages LLMs to associate refusal triggers within a training sample with refusal responses, leading aligned LLMs to refuse harmful queries. However, the refusal triggers include not only harmful linguistic cues but also non-harmful cues, therefore causing overrefusal to benign queries. Building on this mechanistic analysis, we propose a method that explicitly considers refusal triggers in the safety alignment fine-tuning. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach achieves a more favorable trade-off between defense against jailbreak attacks and responsiveness to benign queries, outperforming prior methods. Warning: this paper contains harmful and biased sentences.

Recent work has investigated the concept of adversarial attacks on explainable AI (XAI) in the NLP domain with a focus on examining the vulnerability of local surrogate methods such as Lime to adversarial perturbations or small changes on the input of a machine learning (ML) model. In such attacks, the generated explanation is manipulated while the meaning and structure of the original input remain similar under the ML model. Such attacks are especially alarming when XAI is used as a basis for decision making (e.g., prescribing drugs based on AI medical predictors) or for legal action (e.g., legal dispute involving AI software). Although weaknesses across many XAI methods have been shown to exist, the reasons behind why remain little explored. Central to this XAI manipulation is the similarity measure used to calculate how one explanation differs from another. A poor choice of similarity measure can lead to erroneous conclusions about the stability or adversarial robustness of an XAI method. Therefore, this work investigates a variety of similarity measures designed for text-based ranked lists referenced in related work to determine their comparative suitability for use. We find that many measures are overly sensitive, resulting in erroneous estimates of stability. We then propose a weighting scheme for text-based data that incorporates the synonymity between the features within an explanation, providing more accurate estimates of the actual weakness of XAI methods to adversarial examples.