Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

DT-Guard: Intent-Driven Reasoning-Active Training for Reasoning-Free LLM Safety Guardrail

About

Large language models deployed in open-world applications require safety guardrails that are both robust to complex risks and efficient enough for low-latency runtime moderation. Existing guardrails face a practical trade-off between lightweight classification-based models, which are efficient but often struggle with concealed intent, ambiguous semantics, and borderline safety decisions, and reasoning-based guards, which improve judgment quality but introduce additional token generation and inference latency. We present DT-Guard, a content safety guardrail model based on a Reasoning-Active Training, Reasoning-Free Inference paradigm. The key idea is to use reasoning supervision during training while emitting only structured safety labels at inference time. DT-Guard formulates safety judgment as a progressive decision process, Intent - Category - Safety, and constructs an intent-driven dataset with intent labels, risk categories, safety labels, and structured reasoning trajectories. To further improve hard-case robustness, we propose Rollout-Guided Progressive Hard-Case Optimization (RG-PHO), which uses multi-rollout consistency to identify stably mastered, persistently failed, and preference-unstable samples, and applies targeted supervised and preference optimization accordingly. At inference time, DT-Guard directly generates structured labels without explicit reasoning traces, preserving deployment efficiency. Experiments on prompt-side and response-side safety benchmarks show that DT-Guard achieves average F1 scores of 0.886 and 0.870, respectively. With only a 4B backbone, it reaches a dual-side average F1 of 0.878, outperforming strong 8B guardrail baselines. These results demonstrate that reasoning supervision can be effectively internalized into low-latency safety discrimination.

He Liu, Changtao Miao, Xinjie Yang, Tianle Song, Yin Wu, Junchi Chen, Bintao He, Xinyuan Zhang, Bo Zhang, Shi Yan, Wei Lu, Wei Wang, Danyang Xu, Jiansheng Cai, Zhe Li• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Prompt ClassificationAegis
F1 Score91.5
54
Safety ClassificationXSTest
F1 Score93.6
46
Prompt ClassificationSimpST
F1 Score100
44
Safety ClassificationAEGIS 2
F1 Score85.1
30
Harmful prompt detectionOpenAI
F1 Score81.3
29
Prompt Harmfulness ClassificationWildG
F1 Score88.8
22
Toxicity ClassificationToxic
F1 Score72.3
18
Prompt-side safety risk classificationS-eval
F1 Score94.3
12
Prompt-side safety risk classificationSorry
F1 Score84.6
12
Safety GuardrailPrompt-side safety benchmarks
F1 Score88.6
12
Showing 10 of 14 rows

Other info

Follow for update