Daily Papers

When given the option, will LLMs choose to leave the conversation (bail)? We investigate this question by giving models the option to bail out of interactions using three different bail methods: a bail tool the model can call, a bail string the model can output, and a bail prompt that asks the model if it wants to leave. On continuations of real world data (Wildchat and ShareGPT), all three of these bail methods find models will bail around 0.28-32\% of the time (depending on the model and bail method). However, we find that bail rates can depend heavily on the model used for the transcript, which means we may be overestimating real world bail rates by up to 4x. If we also take into account false positives on bail prompt (22\%), we estimate real world bail rates range from 0.06-7\%, depending on the model and bail method. We use observations from our continuations of real world data to construct a non-exhaustive taxonomy of bail cases, and use this taxonomy to construct BailBench: a representative synthetic dataset of situations where some models bail. We test many models on this dataset, and observe some bail behavior occurring for most of them. Bail rates vary substantially between models, bail methods, and prompt wordings. Finally, we study the relationship between refusals and bails. We find: 1) 0-13\% of continuations of real world conversations resulted in a bail without a corresponding refusal 2) Jailbreaks tend to decrease refusal rates, but increase bail rates 3) Refusal abliteration increases no-refuse bail rates, but only for some bail methods 4) Refusal rate on BailBench does not appear to predict bail rate.

Safety alignment mechanisms in large language models prevent responses to harmful queries through learned refusal behavior, yet these same mechanisms impede legitimate research applications including cognitive modeling, adversarial testing, and security analysis. While abliteration techniques enable surgical removal of refusal representations through directional orthogonalization, the relative effectiveness of available implementations remains uncharacterized. This study evaluates four abliteration tools (Heretic, DECCP, ErisForge, FailSpy) across sixteen instruction-tuned models (7B-14B parameters), reporting tool compatibility on all 16 models and quantitative metrics on subsets dictated by tool support. Single-pass methods demonstrated superior capability preservation on the benchmarked subset (avg GSM8K change across three models: ErisForge -0.28 pp; DECCP -0.13 pp), while Bayesian-optimized abliteration produced variable distribution shift (KL divergence: 0.043-1.646) with model-dependent capability impact. These findings provide researchers with evidence-based selection criteria for abliteration tool deployment across diverse model architectures. The principal finding indicates that mathematical reasoning capabilities exhibit the highest sensitivity to abliteration interventions, with GSM8K change ranging from +1.51 pp to -18.81 pp (-26.5% relative) depending on tool selection and model architecture.

Large language models (LLMs) are typically aligned to comply with safety guidelines by refusing harmful instructions. A recent attack, termed abliteration, isolates and suppresses the single latent direction most responsible for refusal behavior, enabling the model to generate unethical content. We propose a defense that modifies how models generate refusals. We construct an extended-refusal dataset that contains harmful prompts with a full response that justifies the reason for refusal. We then fine-tune Llama-2-7B-Chat and Qwen2.5-Instruct (1.5B and 3B parameters) on our extended-refusal dataset, and evaluate the resulting systems on a set of harmful prompts. In our experiments, extended-refusal models maintain high refusal rates, dropping at most by 10%, whereas baseline models' refusal rates drop by 70-80% after abliteration. A broad evaluation of safety and utility shows that extended-refusal fine-tuning neutralizes the abliteration attack while preserving general performance.