mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

SOM Directions are Better than One: Multi-Directional Refusal Suppression in Language Models

arXiv 2511.08379 ↗First posted 11 Nov 2025cs.AI cs.LGcited by 9

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Refusal refers to the functional behavior enabling safety-aligned language models to reject harmful or unethical prompts. Following the growing scientific interest in mechanistic interpretability, recent work encoded refusal behavior as a single direction in the model's latent space; e.g., computed as the difference between the centroids of harmful and harmless prompt representations. However, emerging evidence suggests that concepts in LLMs often appear to be encoded as a low-dimensional manifold embedded in the high-dimensional latent space. Motivated by these findings, we propose a novel method leveraging Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs) to extract multiple refusal directions. To this end, we first prove that SOMs generalize the prior work's difference-in-means technique. We then train SOMs on harmful prompt representations to identify multiple neurons. By subtracting the centroid of harmless representations from each neuron, we derive a set of multiple directions expressing the refusal concept. We validate our method on an extensive experimental setup, demonstrating that ablating multiple directions from models' internals outperforms not only the single-direction baseline but also specialized jailbreak algorithms, leading to an effective suppression of refusal. Finally, we conclude by analyzing the mechanistic implications of our approach.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 12 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Nov 2025.

Builds on

12 of 28 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models: Concept Cones and Representational Independence24 Feb
  2. 2025The Hidden Dimensions of LLM Alignment: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Orthogonal Safety Directions13 Feb
  3. 2024SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal20 Jun
  4. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul

Other references · 8

  1. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,691
  2. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 1,009
  3. 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakerscited by 318
  4. 2023Emergent Linear Representations in World Models of Self-Supervised Sequence Modelscited by 316
  5. 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 205
  6. 2023Handbook of Convergence Theorems for (Stochastic) Gradient Methodscited by 160
  7. 2025Language Models Use Trigonometry to Do Additioncited by 68
  8. 2024Language Models Encode Numbers Using Digit Representations in Base 10cited by 32

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 8.

9 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026There Is More to Refusal in Large Language Models than a Single Direction
  2. 2026Over-Refusal and Representation Subspaces: A Mechanistic Analysis of Task-Conditioned Refusal in Aligned LLMs
  3. 2025Beyond I'm Sorry, I Can't: Dissecting Large Language Model Refusal
  4. 2025LLMs Encode Harmfulness and Refusal Separately
  5. 2025Understanding Refusal in Language Models with Sparse Autoencoders
  6. 2026From Refusal Tokens to Refusal Control: Discovering and Steering Category-Specific Refusal Directions
  7. 2026Refusal geometry reflects refusal training: diverse refusal prefixes can raise stable rank and weaken refusal vector ablation attacks
  8. 2026On the Steering Dimensionality of Refusal in Language Models