Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

SafeSeek: Universal Attribution of Safety Circuits in Language Models

Miao Yu, Siyuan Fu, Moayad Aloqaily, Zhenhong Zhou, Safa Otoum, Xing fan, Kun Wang, Yufei Guo, Qingsong Wen · Mar 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Mechanistic interpretability reveals that safety-critical behaviors (e.g., alignment, jailbreak, backdoor) in Large Language Models (LLMs) are grounded in specialized functional components. However, existing safety attribution methods struggle with generalization and reliability due to their reliance on heuristic, domain-specific metrics and search algorithms. To address this, we propose \ourmethod, a unified safety interpretability framework that identifies functionally complete safety circuits in LLMs via optimization. Unlike methods focusing on isolated heads or neurons, \ourmethod introduces differentiable binary masks to extract multi-granular circuits through gradient descent on safety datasets, while integrates Safety Circuit Tuning to utilize these sparse circuits for efficient safety fine-tuning. We validate \ourmethod in two key scenarios in LLM safety: \textbf{(1) backdoor attacks}, identifying a backdoor circuit with 0.42\% sparsity, whose ablation eradicates the Attack Success Rate (ASR) from 100\% $\to$ 0.4\% while retaining over 99\% general utility; \textbf{(2) safety alignment}, localizing an alignment circuit with 3.03\% heads and 0.79\% neurons, whose removal spikes ASR from 0.8\% $\to$ 96.9\%, whereas excluding this circuit during helpfulness fine-tuning maintains 96.5\% safety retention.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Mechanistic interpretability reveals that safety-critical behaviors (e.g., alignment, jailbreak, backdoor) in Large Language Models (LLMs) are grounded in specialized functional components."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Mechanistic interpretability reveals that safety-critical behaviors (e.g., alignment, jailbreak, backdoor) in Large Language Models (LLMs) are grounded in specialized functional components."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Mechanistic interpretability reveals that safety-critical behaviors (e.g., alignment, jailbreak, backdoor) in Large Language Models (LLMs) are grounded in specialized functional components."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Mechanistic interpretability reveals that safety-critical behaviors (e.g., alignment, jailbreak, backdoor) in Large Language Models (LLMs) are grounded in specialized functional components."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Mechanistic interpretability reveals that safety-critical behaviors (e.g., alignment, jailbreak, backdoor) in Large Language Models (LLMs) are grounded in specialized functional components."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Mechanistic interpretability reveals that safety-critical behaviors (e.g., alignment, jailbreak, backdoor) in Large Language Models (LLMs) are grounded in specialized functional components."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Mechanistic interpretability reveals that safety-critical behaviors (e.g., alignment, jailbreak, backdoor) in Large Language Models (LLMs) are grounded in specialized functional components.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Mechanistic interpretability reveals that safety-critical behaviors (e.g., alignment, jailbreak, backdoor) in Large Language Models (LLMs) are grounded in specialized functional components.
  • However, existing safety attribution methods struggle with generalization and reliability due to their reliance on heuristic, domain-specific metrics and search algorithms.
  • To address this, we propose \ourmethod, a unified safety interpretability framework that identifies functionally complete safety circuits in LLMs via optimization.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.