analiza aiqbench
This research reveals that knowledge-based and safety-based refusals in large language models share an initial "commit" mechanism but diverge in later layers based on epistemic or normative grounds. The study highlights an asymmetric transfer where safety signals more strongly influence knowledge refusal than vice versa, offering critical insights into the internal architecture of model governance. Understanding these distinct yet overlapping pathways is essential for developing more transparent and controllable AI systems.
A Unified Mechanistic Analysis of Knowledge- and Safety-Based Refusals
arXiv:2609.00760v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to decline queries that fall outside their knowledge (knowledge-based refusal, KR) or violate safety policies (safety-based refusal, SR). Although KR and SR result in superficially similar responses, they have largely been studied in isolation, leaving open whether they share an underlying mechanism. We address this gap with a systematic study on a new dataset of 213 contrastive quadruples that jointly probe both refusal types. We find that KR and SR are governed by overlapping yet distinguishable mechanisms. Both share a refusal direction, yet the overlap is asymmetric: SR signals transfer more strongly to KR than the reverse. Type-specific specialization emerges mainly in upper layers, with KR aligning with uncertainty- and knowledge-related representations and SR with safety- and policy-related ones. We thus characterize refusal as a commit-then-specify process: a shared initial mechanism commits to refusing, then type-specific features in later layers specify whether the grounds are epistemic or normative.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to decline queries that fall outside their knowledge (knowledge-based refusal, KR) or violate safety policies (safety-based refusal, SR). Although KR and SR result in superficially similar responses, they have largely been studied in isolation, leaving open whether they share an underlying mechanism. We address this gap with a systematic study on a new dataset of 213 contrastive quadruples that jointly probe both refusal types. We find that KR and SR are governed by overlapping yet distinguishable mechanisms. Both share a refusal direction, yet the overlap is asymmetric: SR signals transfer more strongly to KR than the reverse. Type-specific specialization emerges mainly in upper layers, with KR aligning with uncertainty- and knowledge-related representations and SR with safety- and policy-related ones. We thus characterize refusal as a commit-then-specify process: a shared initial mechanism commits to refusing, then type-specific features in later layers specify whether the grounds are epistemic or normative.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.00760 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.00760v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.00760 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 250 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

Improving CoT Monitorability of Evaluation Awareness via Verbalization Training
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026