Bait-and-Recover: Poisoning Internal Refusal Signals to Defend LLMs against White-Box Editing Jailbreaks
On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Open-weight large language models face a low-cost white-box threat from representation engineering attacks. Attackers can estimate refusal directions and search for projection-matrix edits that suppress safety alignment while preserving general capabilities, within minutes on a single GPU and without gradient-based training. We propose Bait-and-Recover, a weight-level defense that places a bait adapter where attackers read activations and a paired recovery adapter at the subsequent layer. Trained via gradient routing, this decouples the observation path from the behavior path. By actively poisoning the residual signal used for measurement, Bait-and-Recover disrupts the attacker's edit search, while the recovery layer restores clean downstream computation. Across four open-weight models, our defense raises the minimum refusal rate against white-box edit searches from 16.25% to 71.75% under a strict behavior-preservation budget (KL <= 0.10), with negligible impact on general benchmarks. By invalidating the core measurement assumption of these attacks, observation-path poisoning offers a practical complement to behavior-level safety training.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 15 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Sep 2026.
Builds on
15 of 30 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction17 Jun
- 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakers6 Jun
- 2024Representation Noising: A Defence Mechanism Against Harmful Finetuning23 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
Other references · 10
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,501
- 2022Mass-Editing Memory in a Transformercited by 1,001
- 2024LLMs know their vulnerabilities: Uncover Safety Gaps through Natural Distribution Shiftscited by 86
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Be Kind, Rewrite: Benign Projections via Rewriting Defend Against LLM Data Poisoning Attacks
- 2025From Threat to Tool: Leveraging Refusal-Aware Injection Attacks for Safety Alignment
- 2025DualEdit: Mitigating Safety Fallback in LLM Backdoor Editing via Affirmation-Refusal Regulation
- 2026Beyond Over-Refusal: Defending Indirect Prompt Injection via Latent Instruction Manifolds
- 2025An Embarrassingly Simple Defense Against LLM Abliteration Attacks
- 2026Reactivating Alignment: Defending LLMs from Jailbreaks via Intention-Aware Input-Output Matching
- 2026Removing the NEEDLE in the Haystack: Backdoor Removal in LLMs via Weight Orthogonalisation
- 2026Ellipsoid Control: A White-list Jailbreak Defense via Benign Latent Modeling