Localizing Safety Alignment: MLP Layers and Mid-Network Blocks Encode Refusal Behavior in Large Language Models
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Safety alignment in large language models is often treated as a distributed property of the entire network, yet its practical brittleness suggests that refusal behavior may be concentrated in a smaller set of parameters. This work addresses where safety-aligned refusal is encoded by transplanting weights from aligned models into matched unaligned base models at multiple levels of granularity. Using two open-weight model pairs and four safety benchmarks, we conducted experiments to compare the effects of replacing attention weights, MLP weights, contiguous layer regions, and MLP blocks. Across both model families, refusal transfer is dominated by MLP weights: replacing MLP parameters recovers substantially more malicious-prompt refusal than replacing attention parameters, with gains of at least 2.7 times more across benchmarks. Within the MLP stack, refusal-relevant parameters exhibit a consistent mid-network concentration, as the block spanning layers 8-11 is selected first in all six greedy searches over model-dataset pairs. The results also show that the composition of safety-relevant components is non-additive: in five of six greedy trajectories, adding more aligned blocks can reduce refusal performance, and selective block subsets can outperform full MLP transplantation on malicious refusal, benign over-refusal, or both. Finally, greedy orders transferred to OR-Bench vary with the source benchmark used to derive them, indicating a benchmark-dependent precision-coverage trade-off. These results suggest that safety alignment in current LLMs is both localized and interaction-sensitive, offering insight into alignment brittleness and potential avenues for targeted safety interventions.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 26 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Aug 2026.
Builds on
26 of 29 references.
Closest ancestors · 8
Same direction, newest first
- 2025The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models: Concept Cones and Representational Independence24 Feb
- 2024Safe to Serve: Aligning Instruction-Tuned Models for Safety and Helpfulness26 Nov
- 2024PKU-SafeRLHF: Towards Multi-Level Safety Alignment for LLMs with Human Preference20 Jun
- 2024OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models31 May
- 2024Assessing the Brittleness of Safety Alignment via Pruning and Low-Rank Modifications7 Feb
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!5 Oct
- 2023Shadow Alignment: The Ease of Subverting Safely-Aligned Language Models4 Oct
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul
Other references · 18
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 1,032
- 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 505
- 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
6 more
- 2024Programming Refusal with Conditional Activation Steeringcited by 206
- 2024Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreak Attacks via Layer-specific Editingcited by 79
- 2025RealSafe-R1: Safety-Aligned DeepSeek-R1 without Compromising Reasoning Capabilitycited by 59
- 2025TwinBreak: Jailbreaking LLM Security Alignments based on Twin Promptscited by 19
- 2024WalledEval: A Comprehensive Safety Evaluation Toolkit for Large Language Modelscited by 17
- 2026Exposing LLM Safety Gaps Through Mathematical Encoding:New Attacks and Systematic Analysiscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026When Safety Routing Breaks: Understanding Alignment Fragility under Benign Fine-Tuning
- 2025Refusal Direction is Universal Across Safety-Aligned Languages
- 2026Refusal Localizes, the Damage Relocates: Safety Layers Under Few-Sample Fine-Tuning
- 2026Beyond Shallow Alignment: How Post-Training Methods Determine Refusal Circuits And Steering Robustness
- 2026The Geometry of Refusal: Linear Instability in Safety-Aligned LLMs
- 2026Understanding the Effects of Safety Unalignment on Large Language Models
- 2026From Refusal Geometry to Safety Geometry: Harmfulness--Refusal Coupling under Dynamic Adversarial Fine-Tuning
- 2025From Threat to Tool: Leveraging Refusal-Aware Injection Attacks for Safety Alignment