mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Differentiated Directional Intervention A Framework for Evading LLM Safety Alignment

arXiv 2511.06852 ↗First posted 10 Nov 2025cs.CR cs.AI cs.LGcited by 5

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Safety alignment instills in Large Language Models (LLMs) a critical capacity to refuse malicious requests. Prior works have modeled this refusal mechanism as a single linear direction in the activation space. We posit that this is an oversimplification that conflates two functionally distinct neural processes: the detection of harm and the execution of a refusal. In this work, we deconstruct this single representation into a Harm Detection Direction and a Refusal Execution Direction. Leveraging this fine-grained model, we introduce Differentiated Bi-Directional Intervention (DBDI), a new white-box framework that precisely neutralizes the safety alignment at critical layer. DBDI applies adaptive projection nullification to the refusal execution direction while suppressing the harm detection direction via direct steering. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DBDI outperforms prominent jailbreaking methods, achieving up to a 97.88% attack success rate on models such as Llama-2. By providing a more granular and mechanistic framework, our work offers a new direction for the in-depth understanding of LLM safety alignment.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 13 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Nov 2025.

Builds on

13 of 23 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Assessing the Brittleness of Safety Alignment via Pruning and Low-Rank Modifications7 Feb
  2. 2023Jailbreak and Guard Aligned Language Models with Only Few In-Context Demonstrations10 Oct
  3. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!5 Oct
  4. 2023Shadow Alignment: The Ease of Subverting Safely-Aligned Language Models4 Oct

Other references · 9

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
  4. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
  5. 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,420
  6. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 1,032
  7. 2023GPTFUZZER: Red Teaming Large Language Models with Auto-Generated Jailbreak Promptscited by 560
  8. 2023Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attackscited by 278
  9. 2024Automated Red Teaming with GOAT: the Generative Offensive Agent Testercited by 45

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025The Hidden Dimensions of LLM Alignment: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Orthogonal Safety Directions
  2. 2026The Geometry of Refusal: Linear Instability in Safety-Aligned LLMs
  3. 2026Understanding the Effects of Safety Unalignment on Large Language Models
  4. 2026From Detection to Refusal: Safer LLMs via Circuit-Guided Weight Scaling
  5. 2025Improving LLM Safety Alignment with Dual-Objective Optimization
  6. 2026Localizing Safety Alignment: MLP Layers and Mid-Network Blocks Encode Refusal Behavior in Large Language Models
  7. 2026From Refusal Geometry to Safety Geometry: Harmfulness--Refusal Coupling under Dynamic Adversarial Fine-Tuning
  8. 2026Deactivating Refusal Triggers: Understanding and Mitigating Overrefusal in Safety Alignment