Do All LLMs Know When They're Being Harmful? A Reproducibility Study of Latent-Space Safety Probes Across Model Families
On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails
Abstract (arXiv)
Khatri et al. (2026) [DOI: 10.1109/DSN-W70714.2026.00027] show that lightweight MLP probes on final-layer activations of a single 8B model (LLaMA-3.1-8B) detect harmful prompts at F1 competitive with guard models 1000x larger, using one probe per benchmark. We reproduce this pipeline end-to-end and extend it along two axes the original study leaves open. First, we test whether the result generalizes across other model architecture and scale by training identical probes on activations from models like Gemma-4-E4B, Mistral-7B-v0.3, and Qwen2-7B, using the three benchmarks (WildJailbreak, BeaverTails, AEGIS 2.0). Second, we test how much of the reported performance is affected by non-determinism during inference by repeating extraction under five random seeds and measuring the variance of F1 scores. Our results reproduce the original LLaMA model benchmarks within 0.37 percentage points of the original F1 scores (and within 0.2 points on BeaverTails). We find that the original MLP probe architecture extends to other model families with F1 scores within a point of the values reported for LLaMA-3.1-8B. Our experiments varying seed values reveal an interesting observation: final token latent vectors remained the same for all tested architectures irrespective of the seed values used.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 16 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2026.
Builds on
16 of 25 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2025LLMs Encode Harmfulness and Refusal Separately16 Jul
- 2025Aegis2.0: A Diverse AI Safety Dataset and Risks Taxonomy for Alignment of LLM Guardrails15 Jan
- 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMs26 Jun
- 2024Towards Understanding Safety Alignment: A Mechanistic Perspective from Safety Neurons20 Jun
Other references · 12
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
- 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Datasetcited by 828
- 2024ShieldGemma: Generative AI Content Moderation Based on Gemmacited by 224
- 2024Attention Tracker: Detecting Prompt Injection Attacks in LLMscited by 82
- 2025Understanding and Mitigating Numerical Sources of Nondeterminism in LLM Inferencecited by 47
- 2026Constitutional Classifiers++: Efficient Production-Grade Defenses against Universal Jailbreakscited by 36
- 2024LLMScan: Causal Scan for LLM Misbehavior Detectioncited by 13
- 2025Probing Latent Subspaces in LLM for AI Security: Identifying and Manipulating Adversarial Statescited by 8
- 2026DeepContext: Stateful Real-Time Detection of Multi-Turn Adversarial Intent Drift in LLMscited by 8
- 2026Harmful Intent as a Geometrically Recoverable Feature of LLM Residual Streamscited by 4
- 2026Before the Last Token: Diagnosing Final-Token Safety Probe Failurescited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.