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.
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 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.
Safety evaluation is critical for assessing whether aligned Large Language Models (LLMs) remain robust against jailbreak attacks. Existing automated testing methods, however, largely rely on response-level feedback: each candidate prompt typically requires generating a target-model response to evaluate its attack effectiveness. This process is expensive and, more importantly, provides only sparse guidance on strongly aligned models, where most candidates are rejected with the same failure outcome. This paper presents NeuronFuzz, a white-box fuzzing framework that exploits internal safety neurons as continuous execution feedback for LLM safety evaluation. A SafetyOracle converts safety-neuron activations into a continuous safety alarm score that serves as feedback for fuzzing and can be obtained during prefill, eliminating response generation from the fuzzing loop. To construct the SafetyOracle, NeuronFuzz uses template-invariant harmful and benign inputs and stability-aware selection to identify a compact set of safety neurons whose activations capture harmful-intent recognition. Moreover, since the safety alarm score is differentiable, NeuronFuzz uses its gradients to identify safety-sensitive template positions and a masked language model to generate fluent, context-compatible mutations while preserving original harmful payload and avoiding additional optimization variables. We evaluate NeuronFuzz across 21 text and multimodal models. Across five white-box source models, it achieves a 76-100% jailbreak discovery rate, outperforming baselines by up to 48 percentage points. Its optimized templates further transfer zero-shot to open-weight and six proprietary target models, achieving average ASR and top-5 ensemble ASR (EASR) of 69.6%/92.6% and 44.1%/60.0%, respectively.
Zhiyuan Xu, Muhammad Firhard Roslan, Joseph Gardiner +2