Naiqiang Tan
Publications
Who Deserves the Reward? SHARP: Shapley Credit-based Optimization for Multi-Agent System
Integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) with external tools via multi-agent systems offers a promising new paradigm for decomposing and solving complex problems. However, training these systems remains notoriously difficult due to the credit assignment challenge, as it is often unclear which specific functional agent is responsible for the success or failure of decision trajectories. Existing methods typically rely on sparse or globally broadcast rewards, failing to capture individual contributions and leading to inefficient reinforcement learning. To address these limitations, we introduce the Shapley-based Hierarchical Attribution for Reinforcement Policy (SHARP), a novel framework for optimizing multi-agent reinforcement learning via precise credit attribution. SHARP effectively stabilizes training by normalizing agent-specific advantages across trajectory groups, primarily through a decomposed reward mechanism comprising a global broadcast-accuracy reward, a Shapley-based marginal-credit reward for each agent, and a tool-process reward to improve execution efficiency. Extensive experiments across various real-world benchmarks demonstrate that SHARP significantly outperforms recent state-of-the-art baselines, achieving average match improvements of 23.66% and 14.05% over single-agent and multi-agent approaches, respectively.
Mitigating Safety Tax via Distribution-Grounded Refinement in Large Reasoning Models
Safety alignment incurs safety tax that perturbs a large reasoning model's (LRM) general reasoning ability. Existing datasets used for safety alignment for an LRM are usually constructed by distilling safety reasoning traces and answers from an external LRM or human labeler. However, such reasoning traces and answers exhibit a distributional gap with the target LRM that needs alignment, and we conjecture such distributional gap is the culprit leading to significant degradation of reasoning ability of the target LRM. Driven by this hypothesis, we propose a safety alignment dataset construction method, dubbed DGR. DGR transforms and refines an existing out-of-distributional safety reasoning dataset to be aligned with the target's LLM inner distribution. Experimental results demonstrate that i) DGR effectively mitigates the safety tax while maintaining safety performance across all baselines, i.e., achieving \textbf{+30.2\%} on DirectRefusal and \textbf{+21.2\%} on R1-ACT improvement in average reasoning accuracy compared to Vanilla SFT; ii) the degree of reasoning degradation correlates with the extent of distribution shift, suggesting that bridging this gap is central to preserving capabilities. Furthermore, we find that safety alignment in LRMs may primarily function as a mechanism to activate latent knowledge, as a mere \textbf{10} samples are sufficient for activating effective refusal behaviors. These findings not only emphasize the importance of distributional consistency but also provide insights into the activation mechanism of safety in reasoning models.
SafeThinker: Reasoning about Risk to Deepen Safety Beyond Shallow Alignment
Despite the intrinsic risk-awareness of Large Language Models (LLMs), current defenses often result in shallow safety alignment, rendering models vulnerable to disguised attacks (e.g., prefilling) while degrading utility. To bridge this gap, we propose SafeThinker, an adaptive framework that dynamically allocates defensive resources via a lightweight gateway classifier. Based on the gateway's risk assessment, inputs are routed through three distinct mechanisms: (i) a Standardized Refusal Mechanism for explicit threats to maximize efficiency; (ii) a Safety-Aware Twin Expert (SATE) module to intercept deceptive attacks masquerading as benign queries; and (iii) a Distribution-Guided Think (DDGT) component that adaptively intervenes during uncertain generation. Experiments show that SafeThinker significantly lowers attack success rates across diverse jailbreak strategies without compromising utility, demonstrating that coordinating intrinsic judgment throughout the generation process effectively balances robustness and practicality.