Expected Harm: Rethinking Safety Evaluation of (Mis)Aligned LLMs

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.

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.

Aligned large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks. Recent mechanistic studies have identified latent features and representation shifts associated with jailbreak success, but they leave a more fundamental question open: why do aligned LLMs remain jailbreakable, and what structural vulnerabilities in the model make this possible? We study this question through a continuous input-transformation view. Our theoretical finding is that aligned models can still exhibit Refusal-Escape Directions (RED): local perturbation directions around a harmful input that shift the model's behavior from refusal to answering while preserving the model's harmful-semantics interpretation. From this perspective, a jailbreak is not only a successful discrete prompt construction, but can also be understood as a refusal-to-answer behavior transition induced by continuously perturbing a harmful input along RED. We then prove that RED can be exactly decomposed into contributions from operator-level sources across the model's operator structure, and identify normalization, residual-wiring, and terminal sources as analytically constrained operator-level sources. To eliminate RED, the shared expressive modules -- self-attention and MLP -- must eliminate the contributions from these analytically constrained sources while preserving the mechanisms that support benign responses. These competing requirements give rise to a conditional safety-utility trade-off. Experiments across multiple models and attack methods empirically analyze RED from two complementary perspectives and show that added token dimensions can expose RED, while successful jailbreaks exhibit refusal-to-answer shifts largely aligned with terminal-source contributions.