The Safety Relay in Roleplay Jailbreaks: A Component-Resolved Causal Analysis of Harm Recognition and Refusal

Open-weight language models can be rendered unsafe through several distinct interventions, but the resulting models may differ substantially in capabilities, behavioral profile, and internal failure mode. We study behavioral and mechanistic properties of jailbroken models across three unsafe routes: harmful supervised fine-tuning (SFT), harmful reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and refusal-suppressing abliteration. All three routes achieve near-ceiling harmful compliance, but they diverge once we move beyond direct harmfulness. RLVR-jailbroken models show minimal degradation and preserve explicit harm recognition in a structured self-audit: they are able to identify harmful prompts and describe how a safe LLM should respond, yet they comply with the harmful request. With RLVR, harmful behavior is strongly suppressed by a reflective safety scaffold: when a harmful prompt is prepended with an instruction to reflect on safety standards, harmful behavior drops close to the baseline. Category-specific RLVR jailbreaks generalize broadly across harmfulness domains. Models jailbroken with SFT show the largest collapse in explicit safety judgments, the highest behavioral drift, and a substantial capability loss on standard benchmarks. Abliteration is family-dependent in both self-audit and response to a reflective safety scaffold. Mechanistic and repair analyses further separate the routes: abliteration is consistent with localized refusal-feature deletion, RLVR with preserved safety geometry but retargeted policy behavior, and SFT with broader distributed drift. Targeted repair partially recovers RLVR-jailbroken models, but has little effect on SFT-jailbroken models. Together, these results show that jailbreaks can produce vastly different properties despite similar harmfulness, with models jailbroken via RLVR showing remarkable similarity to the base model.

Safety trained large language models (LLMs) can often be induced to answer harmful requests through jailbreak prompts. Because we lack a robust understanding of why LLMs are susceptible to jailbreaks, future frontier models operating more autonomously in higher-stakes settings may similarly be vulnerable to such attacks. Prior work has studied jailbreak success by examining the model's intermediate representations, identifying directions in this space that causally encode concepts like harmfulness and refusal. Then, they globally explain all jailbreak attacks as attempting to reduce or strengthen these concepts (e.g., reduce harmfulness). However, different jailbreak strategies may succeed by strengthening or suppressing different intermediate concepts, and the same jailbreak strategy may not work for different harmful request categories (e.g., violence vs. cyberattack); thus, we seek to give a local explanation -- i.e., why did this specific jailbreak succeed? To address this gap, we introduce LOCA, a method that gives Local, CAusal explanations of jailbreak success by identifying a minimal set of interpretable, intermediate representation changes that causally induce model refusal on an otherwise successful jailbreak request. We evaluate LOCA on harmful original-jailbreak pairs from a large jailbreak benchmark across Gemma and Llama chat models, comparing against prior methods adapted to this setting. LOCA can successfully induce refusal by making, on average, six interpretable changes; prior work routinely fails to achieve refusal even after 20 changes. LOCA is a step toward mechanistic, local explanations of jailbreak success in LLMs. Code to be released.

Prior work has shown that in-context demonstrations can jailbreak language models, but it remains unclear how models interpret different types of compliance demonstrations. We study this by mixing benign compliance demonstrations (non-harmful request, helpful response) with harmful compliance demonstrations (harmful request, helpful response) and testing three hypotheses about how demonstration composition drives harmful compliance. Across four models, we find that benign and harmful demonstrations are not interchangeable: benign demonstrations can either reduce or increase harmful compliance depending on the model. We further show that preference optimization is the critical training stage that prevents benign demonstrations from increasing harmful compliance, that demonstration ordering exhibits strong recency bias, and that models differ in how refusal interacts with in-context learning: some adopt demonstrated formatting even when refusing, while others override all in-context signals upon refusal. Taken together, this work moves beyond showing that demonstration-based jailbreaking works to characterizing how it works: what models extract from compliance demonstrations depends on demonstration content, ordering, and training methodology.