Neuron- and path-level interventions offer the finest-grained route to defending large language models (LLMs) against jailbreak attacks, yet existing methods fall short of this promise, i.e., they often compromise model utility significantly. Specifically, one line of work suppresses toxic neurons to erase harmful semantics, but since such semantics are distributed across the network, blocking every pathway forces a large intervention footprint. An alternative line of research focus on identify safety neurons using external classifiers. While promising, the existing approaches suffer from compromising neurons that are important for the model utility as well. Moreover, both approaches remain always on and thus perturb every benign request even when no attack is present. To address these limitations, we present \ours{}, a training-free defense that first identifies safety-specific neurons through per-neuron hypothesis tests under false-discovery-rate control together with a utility-specificity filter. Based on this identification, a trigger-style clamp holds the selected neurons at their harmful-conditional mean activations, injecting an internal harmful-input signal that triggers the refusal behavior learned during alignment. The clamp is then realized by two provably equivalent deployment modes, namely a detector-gated inference-time intervention and an offline bias-patch weight edit. Extensive experiments across four safety-aligned LLMs and four representative attacks demonstrate that \ours{} reduces the average attack success rate to at most 2.0% while incurring a utility drop of only 0.5% to 5.3% on MT-Bench, the smallest among all defenses. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Tripwire-65C4.
Safety alignment in large language models (LLMs) remains brittle against a growing spectrum of attacks. Jailbreak attacks bypass safety mechanisms through crafted prompts, while neuron-level attacks directly prune safety-critical neurons post-deployment. Both exploit a common weakness: safety-relevant information concentrates in a sparse neuron subset. We present NeuronGuard, a fine-tuning-stage defense that simultaneously hardens LLMs against both attack classes by redistributing safety signals across a broader set of neurons. NeuronGuard dynamically identifies safety-critical neurons via periodically refreshed per-layer linear classifiers, forces refusal behavior under deliberate neuron ablation, and applies KL-divergence regularization for distributional consistency. A randomized gradient projection strategy preserves downstream task utility by resolving conflicts between the defense and task objectives. We provide a formal guarantee that NeuronGuard strictly reduces the attack success rate (ASR) upper bound, and experiments across three LLMs, six state-of-the-art attack strategies, and multimodal settings confirm near-zero ASR while maintaining task accuracy, including against white-box adaptive adversaries.
Anjun Gao, Yueyang Quan, Yufei Xia +2
University of Louisville · University of North Texas
Safety alignment in language models operates through two mechanistically distinct systems: refusal neurons that gate whether harmful knowledge is expressed, and concept neurons that encode the harmful knowledge itself. By targeting a single neuron in each system, we demonstrate both directions of failure -- bypassing safety on explicit harmful requests via suppression, and inducing harmful content from innocent prompts via amplification -- across seven models spanning two families and 1.7B to 70B parameters, without any training or prompt engineering. Our findings suggest that safety alignment is not robustly distributed across model weights but is mediated by individual neurons that are each causally sufficient to gate refusal behavior -- suppressing any one of the identified refusal neurons bypasses safety alignment across diverse harmful requests.
Hamid Kazemi, Atoosa Chegini, Maria Safi
Apple · Work done during an internship at Apple. Present affiliation: University of Maryland, College Park.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have been extensively used across diverse domains, including virtual assistants, automated code generation, and scientific research. However, they remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks, which manipulate the models into generating harmful responses despite safety alignment. Recent studies have shown that current safety-aligned LLMs undergo shallow safety alignment. In this work, we conduct an in-depth investigation into the underlying mechanism of this phenomenon and reveal that it manifests through learned ''safety trigger tokens'' that activate the model's safety patterns when paired with the specific input. Through both analysis and empirical verification, we further demonstrate the high similarity of the safety trigger tokens across different harmful inputs. Accordingly, we propose D-STT, a simple yet effective defense algorithm that identifies and explicitly decodes safety trigger tokens of the given safety-aligned LLM to activate the model's learned safety patterns. In this process, the safety trigger is constrained to a single token, which effectively preserves model usability by introducing minimum intervention in the decoding process. Extensive experiments across diverse jailbreak attacks and benign prompts demonstrate that D-STT significantly reduces output harmfulness while preserving model usability and incurring negligible response time overhead, outperforming ten baseline methods.
Haoran Gu, Handing Wang, Yi Mei +2
Xidian University · Victoria University of Wellington · Westlake University