Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research challenges the prevailing view that model refusal is controlled by a single activation direction, revealing instead a structured internal representation composed of shared cores and domain-specific latents. While linear steering can uniformly trigger refusal behaviors, it obscures these underlying mechanistic differences, highlighting significant limits to current interpretability methods for aligned models. The findings clarify how distinct refusal styles emerge from geometrically distinct directions in activation space while maintaining a common control knob for over-refusal trade-offs.
Sources coveringarXiv, Analytics Vidhya, AI Alignment Forum, LessWrong
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

There Is More to Refusal in Large Language Models than a Single Direction

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2602.02132v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Prior work argues that refusal in large language models is mediated by a single direction, enabling steering and abliteration. We show that this account is incomplete: across diverse refusal and non-compliance categories, refusal behaviors correspond to geometrically distinct directions in activation space. Yet activation steering along any refusal-related direction produces nearly identical refusal--over-refusal trade-offs, acting as a shared one-dimensional control knob. Thus, different directions primarily affect not whether the model refuses, but how it refuses. Using sparse autoencoders, we uncover a structured internal representation of refusal: a reusable core of shared refusal latents supplemented by style- and domain-specific latents. Linear interventions collapse this structure into uniform behavioral control, flattening mechanistic differences across refusal types. Our results reconcile the apparent simplicity of refusal steering with the diversity of refusal behaviors, and clarify the limits of linear interpretability for aligned model behavior.

Abstract:Prior work argues that refusal in large language models is mediated by a single direction, enabling steering and abliteration. We show that this account is incomplete: across diverse refusal and non-compliance categories, refusal behaviors correspond to geometrically distinct directions in activation space. Yet activation steering along any refusal-related direction produces nearly identical refusal--over-refusal trade-offs, acting as a shared one-dimensional control knob. Thus, different directions primarily affect not whether the model refuses, but how it refuses. Using sparse autoencoders, we uncover a structured internal representation of refusal: a reusable core of shared refusal latents supplemented by style- and domain-specific latents. Linear interventions collapse this structure into uniform behavioral control, flattening mechanistic differences across refusal types. Our results reconcile the apparent simplicity of refusal steering with the diversity of refusal behaviors, and clarify the limits of linear interpretability for aligned model behavior.

37 pages. Accepted for publication in the main track of EMNLP 2026. Updated manuscript

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2602.02132 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2602.02132v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.02132 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 247 words

Related coverage