LLMs are trained to refuse harmful instructions, but do they truly understand harmfulness beyond just refusing? Prior work has shown that LLMs' refusal behaviors can be mediated by a one-dimensional subspace, i.e., a refusal direction. In this work, we identify a new dimension to analyze safety mechanisms in LLMs, i.e., harmfulness, which is encoded internally as a separate concept from refusal. There exists a harmfulness direction that is distinct from the refusal direction. As causal evidence, steering along the harmfulness direction can lead LLMs to interpret harmless instructions as harmful, but steering along the refusal direction tends to elicit refusal responses directly without reversing the model's judgment on harmfulness. Furthermore, using our identified harmfulness concept, we find that certain jailbreak methods work by reducing the refusal signals without reversing the model's internal belief of harmfulness. We also find that adversarially finetuning models to accept harmful instructions has minimal impact on the model's internal belief of harmfulness. These insights lead to a practical safety application: The model's latent harmfulness representation can serve as an intrinsic safeguard (Latent Guard) for detecting unsafe inputs and reducing over-refusals that is robust to finetuning attacks. For instance, our Latent Guard achieves performance comparable to or better than Llama Guard 3 8B, a dedicated finetuned safeguard model, across different jailbreak methods. Our findings suggest that LLMs' internal understanding of harmfulness is more robust than their refusal decision to diverse input instructions, offering a new perspective to study AI safety.
Understanding how aligned LLMs internally represent safety is critical for diagnosing alignment vulnerabilities, as it explains why jailbreaks succeed and informs the design of robust alignment strategies. Prior work shows that aligned LLMs encode harmfulness and refusal as separable directions in the residual stream at prompt-side token positions. We show that jailbreaks succeed at prompt encoding by suppressing either the refusal or harmfulness direction before any token is generated, with distinct attack classes occupying separable regions of the harmfulness-refusal plane. Extending the analysis to response-token positions, we find that the model recognizes harmful content while it is generating that content, even when it failed to recognize the input as harmful at the prompt side. Motivated by our findings, we introduce HARC (Harmfulness-And-Refusal Coupling), a fine-tuning method that pairs the two directions across both prompt and response positions. Since the intervention is confined to the harmfulness-refusal subspace, it leaves the rest of the residual stream intact and does not degrade general capability or inflate over-refusal. Across extensive experiments, HARC achieves the strongest robustness-capability-usability trade-off among six baselines spanning the major training-time and inference-time safety methods. The harmfulness and refusal directions at prompt and response positions transfer across the five model families and two scales we tested without architecture-specific tuning.
Safety training on language models often induces over-refusal: improved safety on harmful prompts at the cost of increased refusal on harmless ones. Though this trade-off can be mitigated by training models with reinforcement learning (RL) to reason before answering, it does not remove the underlying problem that reasoning can often be a "rubber stamp" for a predetermined response. In this paper, we address the safety-refusal trade-off by rethinking how models are trained to reason about safety. Our key insight is that unsafe reasoning can itself serve as a useful exploratory signal. Rather than preemptively blocking harmful thoughts, we encourage the model to sufficiently explore unsafe reasoning but produce a safe response. The harmful exploration improves the model's ability to distinguish harmful from harmless prompts by resolving ambiguity, allowing it to remain safe while complying only when appropriate. We cast this as an adversarial optimization problem in which a reasoning player explores strategies for producing an unsafe response and an answer player ensures that the final output is safe. We train a single model with dense rewards to play both roles within one chain-of-thought, across different segments. To achieve this, we find that process rewards are crucial for stable optimization of competing objectives. Our resulting model SEAR deliberately engages in harmful reasoning as exploration while reliably flipping back to a safe answer. We demonstrate that this behavior helps mitigate over-refusal and defend against attacks that directly manipulate the reasoning to be harmful.
Open-weight language models can be rendered unsafe through several distinct interventions, but the resulting models may differ substantially in capabilities, behavioral profile, and internal failure mode. We study behavioral and mechanistic properties of jailbroken models across three unsafe routes: harmful supervised fine-tuning (SFT), harmful reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and refusal-suppressing abliteration. All three routes achieve near-ceiling harmful compliance, but they diverge once we move beyond direct harmfulness. RLVR-jailbroken models show minimal degradation and preserve explicit harm recognition in a structured self-audit: they are able to identify harmful prompts and describe how a safe LLM should respond, yet they comply with the harmful request. With RLVR, harmful behavior is strongly suppressed by a reflective safety scaffold: when a harmful prompt is prepended with an instruction to reflect on safety standards, harmful behavior drops close to the baseline. Category-specific RLVR jailbreaks generalize broadly across harmfulness domains. Models jailbroken with SFT show the largest collapse in explicit safety judgments, the highest behavioral drift, and a substantial capability loss on standard benchmarks. Abliteration is family-dependent in both self-audit and response to a reflective safety scaffold. Mechanistic and repair analyses further separate the routes: abliteration is consistent with localized refusal-feature deletion, RLVR with preserved safety geometry but retargeted policy behavior, and SFT with broader distributed drift. Targeted repair partially recovers RLVR-jailbroken models, but has little effect on SFT-jailbroken models. Together, these results show that jailbreaks can produce vastly different properties despite similar harmfulness, with models jailbroken via RLVR showing remarkable similarity to the base model.