Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the mechanisms behind knowledge-based refusals (KR) and safety-based refusals (SR) in large language models, revealing that while both types of refusals share a common refusal direction, they are governed by distinct mechanisms. Through a new dataset of 213 contrastive quadruples, the authors demonstrate that safety signals transfer more effectively to knowledge refusals than vice versa, indicating an asymmetry in their relationship. The findings suggest a commit-then-specify process, where an initial refusal mechanism is followed by type-specific features that differentiate between epistemic and normative grounds for refusal.
Safety-based refusals in LLMs not only influence knowledge refusals but do so with greater impact, revealing an unexpected asymmetry in their underlying mechanisms.
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.
