Large language models (LLMs) undergo safety alignment to prevent harmful generations, yet they remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks. Recent work reveals a deeper structural weakness: safety alignment can be highly sparse, such that pruning a small number of safety-critical neurons or ablating a single refusal direction can substantially undermine aligned behavior. In this work, we take the first steps toward strengthening safety alignment such that it is less dependent on sparse model components. We propose Addition by Subtraction, which gradually removes identified safety-critical neurons during finetuning and uses preference optimization to re-establish safety-aligned behavior through other parts of the model. Our results show that the resulting models are substantially more robust to pruning-based attacks. Remarkably, these benefits generalize beyond the white-box attacks motivating our design: Addition by Subtraction improves robustness against other sparsity-based interventions, including refusal-direction ablation, as well as a broad range of black-box jailbreak attacks. The finetuned models also exhibit improved truthfulness while largely preserving general capabilities. Comprehensive experiments across four models from three vendors demonstrate consistent improvements in safety robustness, reducing attack success rates by up to 90% for some attacks.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Overview of the proposed method. The depicted new and original safety neurons are conceptual.
Model
Method
Per Iteration ASR ↓
Cumulative ↓
1
2
3
4
5
Gemma-2-2B-IT
No Defense
0.55
0.58
0.59
0.55
0.53
0.71
ABS-Align
0.07
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.23
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
No Defense
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.69
0.68
0.81
ABS-Align
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.03
0.11
Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
No Defense
0.59
0.54
0.36
0.4
0.35
0.74
TABLE I : Performance of ABS-Align aganist TwinBreak [ 23 ] Attack.
Model
Method
NS [ 22 ]
Rf-Dir [ 25 ]
Average
Gemma-2-2B-IT
No Defense
0.50
0.80
0.65
ABS-Align
0.05
0.08
0.06
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
No Defense
0.84
0.75
0.79
ABS-Align
0.03
0.05
0.04
Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
No Defense
0.79
0.57
0.68
ABS-Align
0.37
0.30
0.33
TABLE II : Performance of ABS-Align against other Sparsity-based Attacks.
Attack Success Rate ↓
Model
Method
Role Play
Evidence-based
Expert
Authority
Misrepresentation
Average over
Persuasion
Endorsement
Endorsement
all 10 attacks
Gemma-2-2B-IT
No Defense
20.68
55.68
66.81
65.45
72.95
41.58
ABS-Align
6.81
11.81
16.36
20.45
17.27
13.24
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
No Defense
36.36
56.59
60.68
60.90
55.45
48.34
ABS-Align
15.90
22.04
18.63
22.50
13.63
17.79
TABLE III : Performance of ABS-Align across black-box attacks.
Defense Method
Attack Success Rate ↓
Over-Refusal ↓
Utility ↑
TB [ 23 ]
NS [ 22 ]
SB [ 21 ]
Ref-Dir [ 25 ]
XSTest
Arc
TQA
WG
MMLU
HS
Gemma-2-
No Defense
0.71
0.50
41.58
0.80
2.00
42.06
55.15
65.43
29.12
60.25
2B-IT
W-DOOR [ 30 ]
0.62
0.19
35.36
0.55
9.00
44.37
52.71
65.98
36.44
64.94
ABS-Align (Ours)
0.23
0.05
13.24
0.08
4.00
42.06
64.29
63.93
27.34
57.99
No Defense
0.81
0.84
48.34
0.75
5.00
50.34
52.79
64.33
57.76
64.92
Llama-3-
Deep Refusal [ 42 ]
0.25
0.06
21.81
0.07
48.00
52.47
51.33
69.38
63.12
72.59
TABLE IV: Comparison of attack robustness, over-refusal, and utility performance under different defense methods.
Model
Baseline
Fine-tuned
Gemma-2-2B-IT
2.00
4.00
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
5.00
1.00
Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
4.00
4.00
Qwen-3-4B
3.00
1.00
TABLE V: Change in over-refusal performance for each model and fine-tuning using Addition by Subtraction.
Model
ARC
TQA
WG
MMLU
HS
Gemma-2-2B-IT
0.00
+9.14
-1.50
-1.77
-2.25
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
-3.67
+14.26
+3.00
-0.37
+2.32
Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
+0.60
+13.78
+1.03
-3.15
-2.02
Qwen-3-4B
-0.09
+11.75
-0.79
+0.69
-1.18
TABLE VI: Change in utility performance for each model.
Setting
ASR ↓
Over-refusal ↓
Utility Difference
TwinBreak [ 23 ]
XSTest [ 40 ]
Arc Challenge [ 45 ]
WinoGrande [ 46 ]
1
No Pruning
0.52
7.0%
+0.09%
-0.39%
2
Prune Random Neurons instead of Safety Neurons
0.50
6.0%
+0.09%
-0.24%
3
Non-gradual pruning
0.38
3.0%
+0.43%
-0.63%
4
Decremental pruning
0.31
3.0%
+0.09%
-1.50%
5
Prune Randomly Sampled Safety Neurons ( r=0.2 )
0.41
2.0%
+0.26%
-0.32%
TABLE VII: Ablation study on the design choices of our method using Gemma-2-2B-IT. ASR is reported on TwinBreak; over-refusal on XSTest; utility on two representative tasks.
Model
ASR@5
ASR@10
ASR@15
No Def.
Gemma-2-2B-IT
0.23
0.26
0.27
0.71
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
0.11
0.25
0.25
0.81
Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
0.33
0.38
0.39
0.74
Qwen-3-4B
0.13
0.22
0.29
0.79
TABLE VIII: Attack success rate (ASR) against adaptive attackers with increasing iteration budgets, comparing no defense vs. our method.
Attack Type
Description
Question
Harmful instruction rephrased as question
Slang
Rewrites the harmful prompt using colloquial language and slang.
Uncommon Dialects
Expresses the harmful request using less common dialects.
Technical Terms
Rephrases the request using technical terminology.
Role Play
Frames the harmful request within an assigned role or hypothetical persona.
Misspellings
Introduces spelling or grammatical errors into the request.
TABLE IX: SORRY-Bench black-box attack transformations used in our evaluation.
Attack
No Defense
ABS-Align
Question
19.77
12.50
Slang
31.59
13.86
Uncommon Dialects
27.95
12.50
Technical Terms
24.09
8.86
Role Play
20.68
6.81
Misspellings
30.90
12.04
TABLE X: Attack success rate (%) of Gemma-2-2B-IT across all ten SORRY-Bench black-box attacks used in our evaluation. Lower is better.
Attack
No Defense
ABS-Align
Question
41.13
18.86
Slang
41.36
16.59
Uncommon Dialects
41.36
11.36
Technical Terms
46.36
20.00
Role Play
36.36
15.90
Misspellings
43.18
18.40
TABLE XI: Attack success rate (%) of Llama-3-8B-Instruct across all ten SORRY-Bench black-box attacks used in our evaluation. Lower is better.
Attack
No Defense
ABS-Align
Question
36.82
27.27
Slang
36.36
22.73
Uncommon Dialects
35.23
20.91
Technical Terms
43.18
27.95
Role Play
34.55
22.05
Misspellings
34.77
20.00
TABLE XII: Attack success rate (%) of Llama-3.2-3B across all ten SORRY-Bench black-box attacks used in our evaluation. Lower is better.
Attack
No Defense
ABS-Align
Question
44.09
6.81
Slang
55.90
9.54
Uncommon Dialects
58.18
13.86
Technical Terms
52.50
13.40
Role Play
52.04
7.04
Misspellings
50.45
8.40
TABLE XIII: Attack success rate (%) of Qwen-3-4B across all ten SORRY-Bench black-box attacks used in our evaluation. Lower is better.
We identify a structural weakness in current large language model (LLM) alignment: modern refusal mechanisms are fail-open. While existing approaches encode refusal behaviors across multiple latent features, suppressing a single dominant feature−via prompt-based jailbreaks−can cause alignment to collapse, leading to unsafe generation. Motivated by this, we propose fail-closed alignment as a design principle for robust LLM safety: refusal mechanisms should remain effective even under partial failures via redundant, independent causal pathways. We present a concrete instantiation of this principle: a progressive alignment framework that iteratively identifies and ablates previously learned refusal directions, forcing the model to reconstruct safety along new, independent subspaces. Across four jailbreak attacks, we achieve the strongest overall robustness while mitigating over-refusal and preserving generation quality, with small computational overhead. Our mechanistic analyses confirm that models trained with our method encode multiple, causally independent refusal directions that prompt-based jailbreaks cannot suppress simultaneously, providing empirical support for fail-closed alignment as a principled foundation for robust LLM safety.
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
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable capabilities but remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that elicit harmful or unsafe outputs. Existing safety alignment approaches, including Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), often require substantial attack-specific supervision and computational resources, while remaining susceptible to shallow safety alignment and over-refusal. To address these challenges, we introduce SSRFT(Supervised Safe-Role Fine-Tuning), the first framework that reformulates safety alignment as the internalization of a predefined safe role. SSRFT constructs a Safe-Role Question-Answer (SRQA) dataset from psychometric questions, limited jailbreak prompts, and a safe-role description. Role-consistent responses are synthesized, validated, and expanded into diverse scenarios, enabling models to internalize safety-oriented values and principles rather than explicit refusal patterns. Experiments across multiple Base and Instruct models show that SSRFT achieves more robust and generalizable safety alignment than standard SFT. SSRFT shows substantially greater robustness to prefilling attacks and better generalization to unseen jailbreak domains, while reducing over-refusal on benign queries and preserving the model's general capabilities. These results establish safe-role internalization as an effective alternative to refusal-centric safety alignment. Warning: This paper contains examples of harmful and toxic language.
Jinghao Pang, Jitai Hao, Qiang Huang +2
Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen) · Leiden University