Knowing without Acting: The Disentangled Geometry of Safety Mechanisms in Large Language Models
Jinman Wu, Yi Xie, Shen Lin, Shiqian Zhao, Xiaofeng Chen
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Safety alignment is often conceptualized as a monolithic process wherein harmfulness detection automatically triggers refusal. However, the persistence of jailbreak attacks suggests a fundamental mechanistic decoupling. We propose the \textbf{\underline{D}}isentangled \textbf{\underline{S}}afety \textbf{\underline{H}}ypothesis \textbf{(DSH)}, positing that safety computation operates on two distinct subspaces: a \tex ...
tit{Recognition Axis} ($\mathbf{v}_H$, ``Knowing'') and an \textit{Execution Axis} ($\mathbf{v}_R$, ``Acting''). Our geometric analysis reveals a universal ``Reflex-to-Dissociation'' evolution, where these signals transition from antagonistic entanglement in early layers to structural independence in deep layers. To validate this, we introduce \textit{Double-Difference Extraction} and \textit{Adaptive Causal Steering}. Using our curated \textsc{AmbiguityBench}, we demonstrate a causal double dissociation, effectively creating a state of ``Knowing without Acting.'' Crucially, we leverage this disentanglement to propose the \textbf{Refusal Erasure Attack (REA)}, which achieves State-of-the-Art attack success rates by surgically lobotomizing the refusal mechanism. Furthermore, we uncover a critical architectural divergence, contrasting the \textit{Explicit Semantic Control} of Llama3.1 with the \textit{Latent Distributed Control} of Qwen2.5. The code and dataset are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/DSH.
Results & Benchmarks
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Safety alignment is often conceptualized as a monolithic process wherein harmfulness detection automatically triggers refusal.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
None detected
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.