What Drives Representation Steering? A Mechanistic Case Study on Steering Refusal

Large language models can be steered at inference time through prompting or activation interventions, but activation steering methods often underperform compared to prompt-based approaches. We propose a framework that formulates prompt steering as a form of activation steering and investigates whether distilling successful prompt steering behavior into simpler, interpretable models can close this gap. Our analysis reveals that popular activation steering methods are not faithful to the mechanics of prompt steering, which applies strong interventions on some tokens while barely affecting others. Based on these insights, we introduce Prompt Steering Replacement (PSR) models that estimate token-specific steering coefficients from the activations themselves and are trained to imitate prompt-based interventions. Experiments on three steering benchmarks across multiple language models show that PSR models outperform existing activation steering methods, especially when controlling for high-coherence completions, and also compare favorably to prompting on AxBench and persona steering.

Activation steering has become a popular way to control Large Language Model (LLM) behavior without fine-tuning. Since the technique is plug-and-play, users share datasets and precomputed vectors to steer model activations. However, we show that a \emph{stealth data poisoning attack} silently compromises this pipeline. By substituting $4{-}6\%$ of tokens in the steering dataset, an attacker can silently align the resulting vector with an anti-refusal direction. This jailbreaks the target model while preserving the intended steering effect on benign prompts. Under this threat model, a malicious actor can distribute an apparently safe bundle containing texts, vectors, and weights, alongside an equivalence certificate that the end-user can verify. We test the attack on two open-weight model families and eight model-attribute combinations, observing that poisoned vectors reach an absolute attack success rate (ASR) of $20{-}55\%$, $+19\%$ to $+51\%$ over a clean reference. Finally, we find that a refusal-direction orthogonalization defense can recover ${\approx}82\%$ of the ASR gap without harming benign behavior.

Steering vectors are a lightweight tool for controlling LLM behavior. However, emerging evidence shows that steering vectors can unintentionally compromise a model's safety mechanisms and increase compliance with harmful requests, while no effective mitigation yet exists. In this work, we show that this safety degradation arises from a separable component in the vector that disrupts the model's safety mechanisms but contributes little to the steering objective. We identify and remove this safety-degrading component, formulating the task as a constrained optimization problem solved through primal-dual updates, subject to preserving the intended steering effect and bounding false refusal. The resulting solution is both interpretable and surgical: the optimization recovers a single direction whose ablation from the steering vector restores model safety with minimal utility cost. Across models, steering behaviors, and attack suites, including unseen attacks types, our method substantially reduces steering-induced safety degradation while preserving the original steering effect with minimal impact on false refusal. Our method offers a post-hoc correction to steering vectors that mitigates their safety cost, and more broadly, it provides a general recipe for applying activation-level model interventions without paying a safety tax.