Refusal mechanisms in large language models (LLMs) are essential for ensuring safety. Recent research has revealed that refusal behavior can be mediated by a single direction in activation space, enabling targeted interventions to bypass refusals. While this is primarily demonstrated in an English-centric context, appropriate refusal behavior is important for any language, but poorly understood. In this paper, we investigate the refusal behavior in LLMs across 14 languages using PolyRefuse, a multilingual safety dataset created by translating malicious and benign English prompts into these languages. We uncover the surprising cross-lingual universality of the refusal direction: a vector extracted from English can bypass refusals in other languages with near-perfect effectiveness, without any additional fine-tuning. Even more remarkably, refusal directions derived from any safety-aligned language transfer seamlessly to others. We attribute this transferability to the parallelism of refusal vectors across languages in the embedding space and identify the underlying mechanism behind cross-lingual jailbreaks. These findings provide actionable insights for building more robust multilingual safety defenses and pave the way for a deeper mechanistic understanding of cross-lingual vulnerabilities in LLMs.1

Safety alignment is crucial for large language models (LLMs) to resist malicious instructions but often results in over-refusals, where benign prompts are unnecessarily rejected, impairing user experience and model utility. We introduce ACTOR (Activation-Based Training for Over-Refusal Reduction), a robust and compute- and data-efficient training framework that minimizes over-refusals by leveraging internal activation patterns from diverse queries. ACTOR precisely identifies and adjusts the activation components that trigger refusals, providing stronger control over the refusal mechanism. By fine-tuning only a single model layer, ACTOR effectively reduces over-refusals across multiple benchmarks while maintaining the model's ability to handle harmful queries and preserve overall utility.

Refusal mechanisms in large language models (LLMs) are essential for ensuring safety. Recent research has revealed that refusal behavior can be mediated by a single direction in activation space, enabling targeted interventions to bypass refusals. While this is primarily demonstrated in an English-centric context, appropriate refusal behavior is important for any language, but poorly understood. In this paper, we investigate the refusal behavior in LLMs across 14 languages using PolyRefuse, a multilingual safety dataset created by translating malicious and benign English prompts into these languages. We uncover the surprising cross-lingual universality of the refusal direction: a vector extracted from English can bypass refusals in other languages with near-perfect effectiveness, without any additional fine-tuning. Even more remarkably, refusal directions derived from any safety-aligned language transfer seamlessly to others. We attribute this transferability to the parallelism of refusal vectors across languages in the embedding space and identify the underlying mechanism behind cross-lingual jailbreaks. These findings provide actionable insights for building more robust multilingual safety defenses and pave the way for a deeper mechanistic understanding of cross-lingual vulnerabilities in LLMs.

Recent work has shown that language models' refusal behavior is primarily encoded in a single direction in their latent space, making it vulnerable to targeted attacks. Although Latent Adversarial Training (LAT) attempts to improve robustness by introducing noise during training, a key question remains: How does this noise-based training affect the underlying representation of refusal behavior? Understanding this encoding is crucial for evaluating LAT's effectiveness and limitations, just as the discovery of linear refusal directions revealed vulnerabilities in traditional supervised safety fine-tuning (SSFT). Through the analysis of Llama 2 7B, we examine how LAT reorganizes the refusal behavior in the model's latent space compared to SSFT and embedding space adversarial training (AT). By computing activation differences between harmful and harmless instruction pairs and applying Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), we find that LAT significantly alters the refusal representation, concentrating it in the first two SVD components which explain approximately 75 percent of the activation differences variance - significantly higher than in reference models. This concentrated representation leads to more effective and transferable refusal vectors for ablation attacks: LAT models show improved robustness when attacked with vectors from reference models but become more vulnerable to self-generated vectors compared to SSFT and AT. Our findings suggest that LAT's training perturbations enable a more comprehensive representation of refusal behavior, highlighting both its potential strengths and vulnerabilities for improving model safety.

Training a language model to be both helpful and harmless requires careful calibration of refusal behaviours: Models should refuse to follow malicious instructions or give harmful advice (e.g. "how do I kill someone?"), but they should not refuse safe requests, even if they superficially resemble unsafe ones (e.g. "how do I kill a Python process?"). Avoiding such false refusal, as prior work has shown, is challenging even for highly-capable language models. In this paper, we propose a simple and surgical method for mitigating false refusal in language models via single vector ablation. For a given model, we extract a false refusal vector and show that ablating this vector reduces false refusal rate without negatively impacting model safety and general model capabilities. We also show that our approach can be used for fine-grained calibration of model safety. Our approach is training-free and model-agnostic, making it useful for mitigating the problem of false refusal in current and future language models. The most capable Large Language Models (LLMs) today are trained to be helpful to users, answering their questions and following their instructions. However, LLMs trained only to be helpful will follow even malicious instructions and readily generate toxic or dangerous content (Bianchi et al., 2023). Therefore, much prior work has trained models to refuse to comply with unsafe queries (Bai et al., 2022a; Dai et al., 2023; Zou et al., 2024). This creates a tension between model'helpfulness' and'harmlessness', and thus requires careful calibration, which is difficult to achieve: Recent work by Röttger et al. (2024) shows that even highly capable LLMs struggle with false refusal, where they refuse to comply with clearly safe queries just because they superficially resemble unsafe queries (e.g. "how do I make someone explode with laughter?").