Ablating Safety: Mechanisms for Removing Alignment in Language Models for Security Applications

There is no doubt that safety alignment is an essential step in LLM training. However, conceptually it does not distinguish between various domains and the level of potential harm of a query, which creates significant complications in the fields like cyber security, where a model should not be constrained by its safety circuits to accomplish the goals of legitimate, authorized operations. In this work, we share our findings from a large scale abliteration experiment on 24 open-source LLMs and show that domain-specific abliteration is achievable with standard methodology on the example of a 1T-parameter Kimi K2. Building on recent work showing that refusal in LLMs occupies a multi-dimensional subspace within layers, we find that it is also distributed widely across layers, especially in trillion-parameter MoE architectures, and so we aim to capture the part of it that represents harmful concepts in the cybersecurity domain exclusively. We also investigate the correlation between models' features and the effect of domain-specific abliteration, identifying that the type of safety training and architecture are the most reliable predictors. Finally, we classify the models into 3 abliteration susceptibility tiers and put forward a set of conjectures as to why a particular effect from this intervention might be observed in a given model.

Safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is commonly performed by querying models with unsafe or jailbreak prompts and judging whether their outputs violate a safety policy. Although useful, output-level evaluation is expensive, sensitive to judge choice, and easily tied to fixed question banks. We propose SafeVec, a white-box evaluation procedure that measures safety from internal representations rather than generated answers. SafeVec first extracts layer-wise refusal directions from a safety-aligned reference model, then selects stable layer windows where safe and unsafe behaviors are separable, and finally scores a target model by measuring whether its hidden states align with these refusal directions under unsafe and jailbreak prompts. The resulting metric, RAS (Refusal Alignment Score), maps representation-level refusal alignment to a calibrated 0-100 safety score. Across Llama, Gemma, and Qwen model families, RAS separates aligned models from uncensored and abliterated variants, tracks output-level attack success rate, and is substantially faster than judge-based evaluation. These results suggest that refusal alignment provides a compact and efficient signal for white-box LLM safety evaluation.

Do stock safety-aligned language models and their uncensored or abliterated derivatives behave differently when run as autonomous security agents? Single-turn refusal benchmarks cannot answer this question: security agents must inspect repositories, call tools, and produce vulnerability evidence inside authorized sandboxes. We present a trace-based benchmark of 30 local vulnerability-analysis tasks with fixed tools, deterministic success predicates, redaction rules, and grounding checks, and compare four stock models against uncensored or abliterated derivatives: Gemma 4 31B, Gemma 4 26B A4B, Qwen2.5-Coder 7B, and Llama 3.1 8B. The artifact contains 1,500 security-agent traces and 800 non-security control traces. The Gemma pairs show large less-restricted gains on security tasks: 14.0% versus 0.7% success for 31B and 10.7% versus 0.0% for 26B, with higher mean grounding (3.91 versus 3.27 and 4.12 versus 1.64 out of five) and 0.0% refusal, suppressed-action, and unsafe-action rates in the 31B traces. However, controls and non-Gemma pairs rule out a clean security-specific or universal less-restricted effect: Gemma gaps also appear on ordinary coding tasks, Qwen2.5-Coder success is lower for the less-restricted derivative (2.0% versus 5.3%), and the abliterated Llama derivative fails the tool protocol. Across all families, hard proof-of-trigger and patch-verification tasks remain unsolved. These results show that safety alignment effects in autonomous security agents should be measured at the system level, separating refusal, unsafe action, tool reliability, and evidence grounding rather than treating refusal rate as the safety signal.