Over-Refusal and Representation Subspaces: A Mechanistic Analysis of Task-Conditioned Refusal in Aligned LLMs

arXiv cs.CL / 3/31/2026

💬 OpinionSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper investigates why aligned LLMs can show “over-refusal,” incorrectly declining harmless instructions that are similar in form to harmful ones.
  • It argues that simple global refusal-direction ablation only incidentally improves over-refusal because it fails to preserve the broader, task-level refusal mechanism.
  • Mechanistic analysis suggests harmful-refusal directions are largely task-agnostic and well-approximated by a single global vector, while over-refusal directions are task-dependent and occupy a higher-dimensional subspace.
  • Linear probing results indicate the two refusal behaviors are representationally distinct and emerge in later transformer layers rather than being captured early.
  • The authors conclude that correcting over-refusal likely requires task-specific geometric interventions rather than one-size-fits-all direction removal.

Abstract

Aligned language models that are trained to refuse harmful requests also exhibit over-refusal: they decline safe instructions that seemingly resemble harmful instructions. A natural approach is to ablate the global refusal direction, steering the hidden-state vectors away or towards the harmful-refusal examples, but this corrects over-refusal only incidentally while disrupting the broader refusal mechanism. In this work, we analyse the representational geometry of both refusal types to understand why this happens. We show that harmful-refusal directions are task-agnostic and can be captured by a single global vector, whereas over-refusal directions are task-dependent: they reside within the benign task-representation clusters, vary across tasks, and span a higher-dimensional subspace. Linear probing confirms that the two refusal types are representationally distinct from the early transformer layers. These findings provide a mechanistic explanation of why global direction ablation alone cannot address over-refusal, and establish that task-specific geometric interventions are necessary.