Refusing Intent, Not Form: Wrapper-Based Intent-Group Supervision for LLM Safety

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.

How do the methods used to train language models to refuse harmful requests shape how that refusal actually works inside the model? We compare three post-training methods - supervised fine-tuning, reasoning-augmented fine-tuning (training on reasoning chains that justify a safety decision), and preference optimization (ORPO) - across three architecturally distinct models (Llama-3.1-8B, Gemma-2-9B, Qwen3-8B). We find that training method, not just data, reshapes how refusal is computed internally: reasoning-augmented training consistently produces a distinct kind of refusal computation, visible across all three models, while architecture independently shapes internal structure and how reliably refusal can be steered. Most importantly, no method we study achieves all three properties we would want from safe alignment at once: refusal that isn't concentrated in a few fragile components, safety gains that don't cost general capability, and safety behavior correctable through small, targeted edits. We caution against treating current post-training methods as a solved, reliable defense, especially for security-critical use. Code and models are available in https://github.com/hoangcuongnguyen2001/Beyond-Shallow-Alignment.

Language models are commonly fine-tuned for safety alignment to refuse harmful prompts. One approach fine-tunes them to generate categorical refusal tokens that distinguish different refusal types before responding. In this work, we leverage a version of Llama 3 8B fine-tuned with these categorical refusal tokens to enable inference-time control over fine-grained refusal behavior, improving both safety and reliability. We show that refusal token fine-tuning induces separable, category-aligned directions in the residual stream, which we extract and use to construct categorical steering vectors with a lightweight probe that determines whether to steer toward or away from refusal during inference. In addition, we introduce a learned low-rank combination that mixes these category directions in a whitened, orthonormal steering basis, resulting in a single controllable intervention under activation-space anisotropy, and show that this intervention is transferable across same-architecture model variants without additional training. Across benchmarks, both categorical steering vectors and the low-rank combination consistently reduce over-refusals on benign prompts while increasing refusal rates on harmful prompts, highlighting their utility for multi-category refusal control.