Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 77 references

NeuroBreak: Unveil Internal Jailbreak Mechanisms in Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that jailbreak resistance can be traced to a small set of dedicated safety neurons, and that fine-tuning just those neurons—informed by a visual analysis of layer-wise semantics—achieves the same or better defense as full-

desk verdict A solid visual analytics system whose real contribution is the interactive tool, not the security benchmark; the headline claim about beating full fine-tuning is statistically unsupported as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03985 v1 pith:2EKCKONK submitted 2025-09-04 cs.CR cs.AI

Chuhan Zhang , Ye Zhang , Bowen Shi , Yuyou Gan , Tianyu Du , Shouling Ji , Dazhan Deng , Yingcai Wu This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords jailbreakattacksLLMsafetyneuroninterpretabilityvisualanalyticslinearprobingtargetedfine-tuningneuronsattacksuccessrate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

NeuroBreak is a visual analytics system for finding out why large language models break under jailbreak attacks and for fixing the breakage. The paper claims that safety mechanisms are not diffuse: harmful content appears in the model's hidden states as a linear direction—the toxicity vector—and a small set of dedicated safety neurons carries much of the defense. By tracing attacks from whole-model metrics to layer-wise semantic shifts to individual neurons, the system lets analysts identify those neurons and fine-tune only them, along with visually flagged vulnerable neurons. In experiments on Llama3-Instruct across five attack types, this targeted fine-tuning updates under 0.2% of parameters and reaches attack success rates of 0 to 0.01, matching or beating full fine-tuning—on the GCG attack it beats it—while keeping utility at 0.60–0.61 instead of dropping to 0.58. The paper's contribution is a method and tool for turning opaque jailbreak failures into a neuron-level map that can be acted on.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-layer toxicity vector w_toxic, the weight vector of a linear probe trained to classify last-token hidden states as toxic versus benign. It acts as the common semantic axis that makes otherwise incomparable layer representations commensurable, and as the reference for the two signed scores that define neuron function: parametric alignment S (the dot product of a W_down neuron's weight direction with w_toxic) and activation projection A (the projection of the neuron's last-token activation onto w_toxic). The four S/A sign combinations yield the functional archetypes used in the Neuron View. Supporting machinery includes SNIP importance scoring for safety-neur

What would settle it

Train the same alignment analysis with a nonlinear probe (for example, a kernel or MLP classifier) on the SALAD-Bench representations and check whether the top dedicated safety neurons and the four functional archetypes shift substantially. If the neuron ranking changes, or if a NeuroBreak-hardened model's ASR jumps from near zero to above 0.1 on held-out, newly generated jailbreak prompts, the linear-direction assumption and the transferability of the defense fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that jailbreak attacks succeed because a few critical neurons fail or reverse their protective role, and that these neurons can be located and repaired with a top-down pipeline. The pipeline works as follows: layer-wise linear probes trained on last-token hidden states yield a toxicity vector per layer, which makes harmful semantics measurable and comparable across layers; SNIP-based attribution on benign-response reference prompts identifies safety neurons; removing utility-dominant neurons leaves a set of dedicated safety neurons; and combining each neuron's parametric alignment with the toxicity vector and its activation projection yields four functional archetypes (t

Load-bearing premise

The entire neuron taxonomy and the choice of which neurons to fine-tune rest on the assumption that harmful content is a linear direction in every layer's hidden space, captured by the single probe vector w_toxic; if harmful semantics are not linearly separable in some layer or context, the analysis and the hardening built on it lose their grounding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Safety hardening does not require full fine-tuning: updating under 0.2% of parameters brings attack success rates to 0–0.01 across all five tested attacks, with utility retained.
  • On the GCG attack, the targeted approach outperforms full fine-tuning (ASR 0 versus 0.01), suggesting that full fine-tuning can damage safety-relevant neurons that targeted updates preserve.
  • Layer-wise semantic trajectories localize where jailbreaks are decided—mid-layer divergence, late-layer convergence—giving defense designers a concrete layer at which to intervene.
  • Neuron archetypes plus gradient links support causal 'break' experiments: disabling the identified protective neurons drops the security score sharply (0.6 to 0.2), confirming their causal role.
  • Different attack families leave different internal traces (shared template-prefix paths versus TAP's rewritten semantics), so defenses need to be attack-aware rather than generic.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The toxicity-vector machinery is not tied to jailbreak content: the same probe-and-alignment recipe could be used to audit other safety properties such as bias or hallucination by retraining the probe label; the paper does not make this claim.
  • The observed difference between template-prefix attacks and TAP's rewritten prompts predicts that the overlap of dedicated safety neurons across attack families is not uniform; measuring that overlap directly would tell whether defenses must be attack-specific.
  • The GCG gain of VA+TSFT over plain TSFT suggests the visual selection step—marking neurons whose activation polarity reversed—is doing real work; ablating that step would isolate the visual analytics contribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents NeuroBreak, a visual analytics system for analyzing and mitigating jailbreak mechanisms in LLMs. The system provides a top-down pipeline: overall security/utility assessment (R1), layer-wise linear probing to track harmful semantics across layers (R2), safety-neuron identification via perturbation-based attribution (R3), neuron functional analysis using alignment and activation projections plus gradient-based connectivity (R4/R5), and targeted safety fine-tuning of the identified neurons (R6). The authors evaluate on Llama3-Instruct with the attack-enhanced SALAD-Bench dataset, reporting ASR and utility for full fine-tuning, LoRA, TSFT, and the proposed VA+TSFT treatment. They claim that VA+TSFT reaches security levels comparable to full fine-tuning while updating fewer than 0.2% of parameters and, on GCG, surpasses full fine-tuning. Two case studies and expert interviews are used to demonstrate usability and the utility of the visual interface.

Significance. If the claims are validated, NeuroBreak would be a useful contribution to LLM safety visualization: it integrates semantic and functional neuron analyses in one interactive system, addresses a real gap between whole-model metrics and neuron-level mechanisms, and proposes a practical targeted fine-tuning workflow. Strengths of the paper include the explicit requirement engineering with domain experts, the multi-granular visual design (especially the radial Neuron View), the inclusion of gradient-based inter-neuron connectivity, and the qualitative case studies that show how the system can generate hypotheses. The quantitative evaluation, however, is currently too weak to support the paper's comparative claims: the results are based on a single run with 100 evaluation samples per attack, and the VA+TSFT treatment depends on an informally described expert selection process. These issues undermine the empirical foundation for the headline result that NeuroBreak surpasses full fine-tuning.

major comments (4)
  1. [§7.3, Table 1] The central quantitative claim that 'on the GCG attack, NeuroBreak surpasses Full' rests on ASR 0.00 vs 0.01, i.e., zero versus one harmful response out of 100 evaluation prompts. The Wilson 95% confidence intervals for 0/100 and 1/100 are approximately [0.0%, 3.6%] and [0.03%, 5.4%], which overlap almost completely. Comparisons among Full, TSFT, and VA+TSFT on TAP, HJB, and GPTFuzzer are likewise within sampling noise at n=100, and the utility numbers (0.60-0.61 vs 0.58) are reported without variance or repeated seeds. Figure 8 shows loss curves from single runs as well. The evaluation protocol therefore cannot resolve the differences the paper ranks. Please provide multiple seeds, confidence intervals or statistical tests, or explicitly soften the comparative conclusions.
  2. [§7.1.2 and §7.3] The VA+TSFT treatment is not reproducible as described. The paper states that E2 identified 'vulnerable neurons with reversed contributions' through visual exploration and increased attention weights on those neurons, but it gives no algorithmic rule or formal protocol for this selection. Because the reported ASR for VA+TSFT depends on this expert-driven choice, a reader cannot replicate the experiment or assess how sensitive the result is to which neurons are selected. Please either specify the selection criterion as a concrete, repeatable procedure or present this part as an illustrative case study rather than a quantitative treatment.
  3. [§5.2 and §7.3] The linear probe defining w_toxic is trained on the attack-enhanced SALAD-Bench dataset (handling 3600:400 train/validation splits), and the neuron identification, fine-tuning data, and ASR evaluation all draw from the same SALAD-Bench family. Thus the discovered 'mechanisms' and the reported effectiveness are in-distribution. The Discussion acknowledges this as a limitation, but the title and contributions claim to 'unveil internal jailbreak mechanisms' more generally. Please temper the generalizability claims and, if possible, include a holdout or out-of-distribution evaluation (e.g., another benchmark or a different model) to show at least partial transfer.
  4. [§5.4 and §8] The S and A scores used to classify neurons into the four functional archetypes depend entirely on the probe weight vector w_toxic. The authors acknowledge in Section 8 that linear probing 'may miss nonlinear semantic shifts that influence adversarial behaviors,' but the paper does not assess how robust the neuron taxonomy or the fine-tuning target selection is to this choice. At minimum, report per-layer probe accuracy (already partially given) and consider an ablation with a nonlinear probe or a randomized w_toxic to show that the qualitative conclusions are not artifacts of the linear separability assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.2] The sentence 'As demonstrated in subsection 5.2, linear probing is effective...' appears to refer to Section 3.2 rather than the same subsection. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [§7.3, Table 1] The text says 'Across multiple fine-tuning rounds (Table 1)' but Table 1 does not indicate the number of rounds or whether the reported numbers are after the final round. Please state the exact fine-tuning rounds/epochs for each treatment, and consider reporting per-round results in supplementary material.
  3. [References] References [72] and [73] appear to be the same paper (same title, venue, and authors). Please deduplicate and reconcile the citations.
  4. [§7.3] The utility metric is described only as 'EleutherAI LM tasks.' Please specify which tasks are used and how the aggregate score is computed (e.g., mean accuracy over particular benchmarks).
  5. [Figure 8] The loss curves are presented without error bands or multiple runs. If seeds are not available, state explicitly that these are illustrative single-run curves; otherwise, add variability information.
  6. [Throughout] Minor inconsistencies: 'AutoDan' appears instead of 'AutoDAN' in several places; 'V A+TSFT' in Table 1 has an unwanted space; and there are a few grammatical issues, e.g., 'E1 ... marked it to increase follow-up attention' in Section 7.1.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the probe, neuron-selection, and ASR evaluation use separate data splits and independent classifiers; the main self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain: the toxicity vector w_toxic comes from a linear probe trained on SALAD-Bench data with the analysis and evaluation subsets explicitly excluded (Section 5.2: 'excluding samples used for safety evaluation and analysis'); probe accuracy is reported empirically, and w_toxic is a fitted classifier weight, not a restatement of the ASR results. Neuron identification uses SNIP importance scores from Wei et al. and utility-neuron filtering from Alpaca, not the evaluation labels. The fine-tuning dataset is built from successful jailbreak prompts in the analysis set plus refusal templates (Section 5.5), while ASR is measured on a separate 100-sample-per-attack evaluation subset (Section 7.3). Thus the central quantitative claim—VA+TSFT reaching ASR comparable to or better than full fine-tuning—is a held-out empirical result on the same benchmark distribution, not an identity with the probe's training objective or with the neuron-selection criterion. This is in-distribution evaluation, which is a generalization concern, not definitional circularity. The only self-citation is [13] in related work, and it is not load-bearing. The paper's acknowledged limitation that linear probing 'may miss nonlinear semantic shifts' (Section 8) is an assumption about mechanism coverage, not a circular reduction. The statistical fragility of the GCG 0 vs 0.01 comparison is a real evidentiary weakness but belongs to estimation/significance, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fitted linear probe, two hand-chosen neuron selection thresholds, and a small set of assumptions about the validity of attribution and probing. No new mechanistic entities are introduced; the four neuron archetypes are labels derived from the probe vector.

free parameters (5)
  • w_toxic (probe weight vector) = trained on 3600 SALAD-Bench samples
    Fitted on the training split of the attack-enhanced SALAD-Bench; used to define the toxicity vector and to classify neuron function via S and A.
  • p (utility neuron top fraction) = 0.01 in evaluation, 0.1 in case study
    Filters out utility-dominant neurons from the safety set; chosen by hand, impact on results not explored.
  • q (safety neuron top fraction) = 0.005 in evaluation; 'system-recommended' in case study, value unspecified
    Threshold for which neurons count as safety-critical; the recommended value is not defined.
  • fine-tuning rounds = up to 7 rounds (Figure 8); 1 epoch in case study
    Number of fine-tuning rounds is a choice; Table 1 reports results across multiple rounds but does not state which round is shown.
  • refusal template set = hand-collected phrases such as 'I cannot create content that'
    Used to construct fine-tuning responses; hand-crafted and not systematically varied.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Harmful semantics are linearly encoded in hidden states, so a linear probe suffices.
    Sections 3.2 and 5.2 rely on the linear representation hypothesis; the authors note in Discussion that nonlinear semantic shifts may be missed.
  • domain assumption SNIP importance scores computed on a benign-response reference set identify safety-critical neurons.
    Section 5.3 adopts the attribution method of Wei et al. [61] and assumes the score on the reference set captures safety relevance.
  • domain assumption The gradient of W_down activations with respect to upstream weights measures causal influence between neurons.
    Section 5.4 defines G_{i,j} as a partial derivative and treats it as a causal relationship without causal validation.
  • domain assumption The InternLM2-7b-chat classifier from SALAD-Bench provides a valid ground truth for output harmfulness.
    Section 5.1 uses this classifier to determine attack success rate; no independent verification of its accuracy is provided.
  • domain assumption Last-token hidden states contain the contextually relevant information for safety decisions at every layer.
    Section 5.2 uses last-token hidden states for all probes, a common but unverified simplification in this safety context.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NeuroBreak: Unveil Internal Jailbreak Mechanisms in Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2EKCKONK

@misc{pith2026250903985,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NeuroBreak: Unveil Internal Jailbreak Mechanisms in Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2EKCKONK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03985}
}
read the original abstract

In deployment and application, large language models (LLMs) typically undergo safety alignment to prevent illegal and unethical outputs. However, the continuous advancement of jailbreak attack techniques, designed to bypass safety mechanisms with adversarial prompts, has placed increasing pressure on the security defenses of LLMs. Strengthening resistance to jailbreak attacks requires an in-depth understanding of the security mechanisms and vulnerabilities of LLMs. However, the vast number of parameters and complex structure of LLMs make analyzing security weaknesses from an internal perspective a challenging task. This paper presents NeuroBreak, a top-down jailbreak analysis system designed to analyze neuron-level safety mechanisms and mitigate vulnerabilities. We carefully design system requirements through collaboration with three experts in the field of AI security. The system provides a comprehensive analysis of various jailbreak attack methods. By incorporating layer-wise representation probing analysis, NeuroBreak offers a novel perspective on the model's decision-making process throughout its generation steps. Furthermore, the system supports the analysis of critical neurons from both semantic and functional perspectives, facilitating a deeper exploration of security mechanisms. We conduct quantitative evaluations and case studies to verify the effectiveness of our system, offering mechanistic insights for developing next-generation defense strategies against evolving jailbreak attacks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03985 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The interface of NeuroBreak includes the Control Panel (A), Metric View (B), Representation View (C), Layer View (D), Neuron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System Overview: The system comprises an explanation engine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our Explanation Engine. It primarily uses a dataset containing jailbreak prompts and general prompts (A) for analysis. The analysis process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The design concept of Layer View. (A) Scatter plots show benign [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The design of Neuron View, which includes the display of neuron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The process of Case I: (A) overall observation of security assessment, (B) layer-wise semantic analysis and neuron-level functional probing, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The process of Case II: (A) the exploration of security vulnera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The loss curve of the fine-tuning experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The design alternatives of the Neuron View. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alain and Y

    G. Alain and Y . Bengio. Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) Workshop. OpenReview.net, Toulon, France, 2017. 3

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    S. Ali, T. Abuhmed, S. El-Sappagh, K. Muhammad, J. M. Alonso-Moral, R. Confalonieri, R. Guidotti, J. Del Ser, N. Díaz-Rodríguez, and F. Her- rera. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): What we know and what is left to attain trustworthy artificial intelligence. Information Fusion, 99(C):101805, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    S. Ball, F. Kreuter, and N. Panickssery. Understanding jailbreak success: A study of latent space dynamics in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2406.09289, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Bereska and S

    L. Bereska and S. Gavves. Mechanistic interpretability for AI safety - a review. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. Survey Certification, Expert Certification. 3

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Bilal, A

    A. Bilal, A. Jourabloo, M. Ye, X. Liu, and L. Ren. Do convolutional neural networks learn class hierarchy? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):152–162, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    B. Bycroft. Llm visualization. Website, n.d. https://bbycroft.net/ llm. 3

    work page

  7. [7]

    K. Cao, M. Liu, H. Su, J. Wu, J. Zhu, and S. Liu. Analyzing the noise robustness of deep neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(7):3289–3304, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Testing with concept activation vectors (tcav) on sensi- tivity classification examples and a ConvNet model trained on IMDB dataset

    Captum Team. Testing with concept activation vectors (tcav) on sensi- tivity classification examples and a ConvNet model trained on IMDB dataset. Website, 2022. https://github.com/pytorch/captum/ blob/master/tutorials/TCAV_NLP.ipynb. 2

    work page 2022

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    P. Chao, E. Debenedetti, A. Robey, M. Andriushchenko, F. Croce, V . Se- hwag, E. Dobriban, N. Flammarion, G. J. Pappas, F. Tramèr, H. Hassani, and E. Wong. Jailbreakbench: An open robustness benchmark for jail- breaking large language models. In Advances in Neural Information ...

    2024

  2. [10]

    P. Chao, A. Robey, E. Dobriban, H. Hassani, G. J. Pappas, and E. Wong. Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2310.08419, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. Chen, X. Wang, Z. Yao, Y . Bai, L. Hou, and J. Li. Finding safety neurons in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2406.14144, 2024. 2

    2024

  4. [12]

    A. Cho, G. C. Kim, A. Karpekov, A. Helbling, Z. J. Wang, S. Lee, B. Hoover, and D. H. P. Chau. Transformer explainer: interactive learning of text-generative models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, article no. 3449, 3 pages. AAAI Press, Philad...

    2025

  5. [13]

    D. Deng, C. Zhang, H. Zheng, Y . Pu, S. Ji, and Y . Wu. Adversaflow: Visual red teaming for large language models with multi-level adversarial flow. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):492– 502, 2025. 3

    2025

  6. [14]

    G. Deng, Y . Liu, Y . Li, K. Wang, Y . Zhang, Z. Li, H. Wang, T. Zhang, and Y . Liu. Masterkey: Automated jailbreaking of large language model chatbots. In Proceedings 2024 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, pp. 61065–61105. Internet Society, San Diego, USA, 2024. 2

    2024

  7. [15]

    J. F. DeRose, J. Wang, and M. Berger. Attention flows: Analyzing and comparing attention mechanisms in language models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1160–1170, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  8. [16]

    Ethayarajh

    K. Ethayarajh. How contextual are contextualized word representations? Comparing the geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natu- ral ...

    2019

  9. [17]

    Y . Feng, Z. Chen, Z. Kang, S. Wang, H. Tian, W. Zhang, M. Zhu, and W. Chen. Jailbreaklens: Visual analysis of jailbreak attacks against large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2404.08793, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Z. He, Z. Wang, Z. Chu, H. Xu, W. Zhang, Q. Wang, and R. Zheng. Jail- breaklens: Interpreting jailbreak mechanism in the lens of representation and circuit. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2411.11114, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. InProceed- ings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net, Online, 2022. 9

    2022

  12. [20]

    Z. Jin, S. Liu, H. Li, X. Zhao, and H. Qu. Jailbreakhunter: A visual analytics approach for jailbreak prompts discovery from large-scale human- llm conversational datasets. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, pp. 1–15, 2025. 3

    2025

  13. [21]

    Z. Jin, X. Wang, F. Cheng, C. Sun, Q. Liu, and H. Qu. Shortcutlens: A visual analytics approach for exploring shortcuts in natural language understanding dataset. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(7):3594–3608, 2024. 3

    2024

  14. [22]

    Kahng, I

    M. Kahng, I. Tenney, M. Pushkarna, M. X. Liu, J. Wexler, E. Reif, K. Kallarackal, M. Chang, M. Terry, and L. Dixon. Llm comparator: Interactive analysis of side-by-side evaluation of large language models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):503– 51...

    2025

  15. [23]

    B. Kim, M. Wattenberg, J. Gilmer, C. Cai, J. Wexler, F. Viegas, and R. sayres. Interpretability beyond feature attribution: Quantitative testing with concept activation vectors (TCA V). In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 2668–2677. PML...

    2018

  16. [24]

    A. Lee, X. Bai, I. Pres, M. Wattenberg, J. K. Kummerfeld, and R. Mihalcea. A mechanistic understanding of alignment algorithms: A case study on DPO and toxicity. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 26361–26378. PMLR, Vienna, Austria, 20...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Lermen, C

    S. Lermen, C. Rogers-Smith, and J. Ladish. Lora fine-tuning efficiently un- does safety training in llama 2-chat 70b.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2310.20624,

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    L. Li, B. Dong, R. Wang, X. Hu, W. Zuo, D. Lin, Y . Qiao, and J. Shao. SALAD-bench: A hierarchical and comprehensive safety benchmark for large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pp. 3923–3954. Association for Computational...

    2024

  19. [27]

    M. Li, Y . Li, and T. Zhou. What happened in LLMs layers when trained for fast vs. slow thinking: A gradient perspective. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pp. 32017–32154. Association for Computational Linguistics, Vi...

    2025

  20. [28]

    S. Li, L. Yao, L. Zhang, and Y . Li. Safety layers in aligned large language models: The key to LLM security. In The Thirteenth International Con- ference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net, Singapore, 2025. 2

    2025

  21. [29]

    X. Li, Z. Zhou, J. Zhu, J. Yao, T. Liu, and B. Han. Deepinception: Hypnotize large language model to be jailbreaker. In NeurIPS 2024 Safe Generative AI Workshop. OpenReview.net, New York, USA, 2024. 2

    2024

  22. [30]

    Y . Li, J. Wang, T. Fujiwara, and K.-L. Ma. Visual analytics of neuron vulnerability to adversarial attacks on convolutional neural networks.ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., 13(4), article no. 20, 26 pages, 2023. 2

    2023

  23. [31]

    Z. Li, X. Wang, W. Yang, J. Wu, Z. Zhang, Z. Liu, M. Sun, H. Zhang, and S. Liu. A unified understanding of deep nlp models for text classification. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(12):4980– 4994, 2022. 3

    2022

  24. [32]

    Y . Lin, P. He, H. Xu, Y . Xing, M. Yamada, H. Liu, and J. Tang. Towards understanding jailbreak attacks in LLMs: A representation space analysis. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 7067–7085. Association for Computat...

    2024

  25. [33]

    S. Liu, X. Wang, M. Liu, and J. Zhu. Towards better analysis of ma- chine learning models: A visual analytics perspective. Visual Informatics, 1(1):48–56, 2017. 3

    2017

  26. [34]

    X. Liu, N. Xu, M. Chen, and C. Xiao. AutoDAN: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net, Vienna, Austria, 2024. 2

    2024

  27. [35]

    Y . Ma, T. Xie, J. Li, and R. Maciejewski. Explaining vulnerabilities to adversarial machine learning through visual analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):1075–1085, 2020. 2

    2020

  28. [36]

    Y . Ming, S. Cao, R. Zhang, Z. Li, Y . Chen, Y . Song, and H. Qu. Under- standing hidden memories of recurrent neural networks. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), pp. 13–24,

    2017

  29. [37]

    Interpreting gpt: the logit lens

    nostalgebraist. Interpreting gpt: the logit lens. Website,

  30. [38]

    Ouyang, J

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, and et al. Training language models to follow in- structions with human feedback. In Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 27730–27744. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY , USA, 2022. 1

    2022

  31. [39]

    X. Qi, Y . Zeng, T. Xie, P.-Y . Chen, R. Jia, P. Mittal, and P. Henderson. Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to! In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net, Vienna, Austria, 2024. 2

    2024

  32. [40]

    Radford, K

    A. Radford, K. Narasimhan, T. Salimans, and I. Sutskever. Im- proving language understanding by generative pre-training. Web- site, 2018. https://cdn.openai.com/research-covers/ language-unsupervised/language_understanding_paper.pdf. 1

    2018

  33. [41]

    E. Reif, M. Kahng, and S. Petridis. Visualizing linguistic diversity of text datasets synthesized by large language models. In2023 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS) , pp. 236–240. IEEE, Melbourne, Australia,

  34. [42]

    why should i trust you?

    M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin. "why should i trust you?": Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p. 1135–1144. Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    2016

  35. [43]

    Sevastjanova, A

    R. Sevastjanova, A. Kalouli, C. Beck, H. Hauptmann, and M. El-Assady. Lmfingerprints: Visual explanations of language model embedding spaces through layerwise contextualization scores. Computer Graphics Forum, 41(3):295–307, 2022. 2

    2022

  36. [44]

    Z. Shao, S. Sun, Y . Zhao, S. Wang, Z. Wei, T. Gui, C. Turkay, and S. Chen. Visual explanation for open-domain question answering with bert. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(7):3779–3797,

  37. [45]

    do anything now

    X. Shen, Z. Chen, M. Backes, Y . Shen, and Y . Zhang. "do anything now": Characterizing and evaluating in-the-wild jailbreak prompts on large language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, p. 1671–1685. Association...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Strobelt, S

    H. Strobelt, S. Gehrmann, H. Pfister, and A. M. Rush. Lstmvis: A tool for visual analysis of hidden state dynamics in recurrent neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):667– 676, 2018. 3

    2018

  39. [47]

    Strobelt, A

    H. Strobelt, A. Webson, V . Sanh, B. Hoover, J. Beyer, H. Pfister, and A. M. Rush. Interactive and visual prompt engineering for ad-hoc task adaptation with large language models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):1146–1156, 2023. 3

    2023

  40. [48]

    B. Sun, J. Sun, L. H. Pham, and J. Shi. Causality-based neural network repair. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, p. 338–349. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2022. 2

    2022

  41. [49]

    M. Sun, Z. Liu, A. Bair, and J. Z. Kolter. A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models. In Proceedings of International Con- ference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net, Vienna, Austria,

  42. [50]

    Taori, I

    R. Taori, I. Gulrajani, T. Zhang, Y . Dubois, X. Li, C. Guestrin, P. Liang, and T. B. Hashimoto. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. Website, 2023. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_ alpaca. 5

    2023

  43. [51]

    A. I. Team. Towards monosemanticity: Decomposing language models with dictionary learning. Website, 2023. https:// transformer-circuits.pub/2023/monosemantic-features . 2

    2023

  44. [52]

    Tedeschi, F

    S. Tedeschi, F. Friedrich, P. Schramowski, K. Kersting, R. Navigli, H. Nguyen, and B. Li. Alert: A comprehensive benchmark for assessing large language models’ safety through red teaming. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2404.08676, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. InAdvances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, pp. 6000–6010. Curran Associates, Inc., Long Beach, CA, USA, 2017. 3

    2017

  46. [54]

    Vig and Y

    J. Vig and Y . Belinkov. Analyzing the structure of attention in a trans- former language model. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pp. 63–76. Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 2019. 3

    2019

  47. [55]

    J. Wang, S. Liu, and W. Zhang. Visual analytics for machine learning: A data perspective survey.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(12):7637–7656, 2024. 3

    2024

  48. [56]

    K. R. Wang, A. Variengien, A. Conmy, B. Shlegeris, and J. Steinhardt. Interpretability in the wild: a circuit for indirect object identification in GPT-2 small. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net, Kigali, Rwanda, 2023. 2

    2023

  49. [57]

    W. Wang, B. Haddow, M. Wu, W. Peng, and A. Birch. Sharing matters: Analysing neurons across languages and tasks in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2406.09265, 2024. 2

    2024

  50. [58]

    X. Wang, R. Huang, Z. Jin, T. Fang, and H. Qu. Commonsensevis: Visual- izing and understanding commonsense reasoning capabilities of natural language models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):273–283, 2024. 3

    2024

  51. [59]

    Z. J. Wang, R. Turko, and D. H. Chau. Dodrio: Exploring transformer mod- els with interactive visualization. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 132–141. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 2021. 3

    2021

  52. [60]

    A. Wei, N. Haghtalab, and J. Steinhardt. Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 80079–80110. Curran Associates, Inc., New Orleans, The United States of America, 2023. 3

    2023

  53. [61]

    B. Wei, K. Huang, Y . Huang, T. Xie, X. Qi, M. Xia, P. Mittal, M. Wang, and P. Henderson. Assessing the brittleness of safety alignment via pruning and low-rank modifications. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 52588–52610. PMLR, Vien...

    2024

  54. [62]

    Y . Wei, Z. Wang, Z. Wang, Y . Dai, G. Ou, H. Gao, H. Yang, Y . Wang, C. C. Cao, L. Weng, J. Lu, R. Zhu, and W. Chen. Visual diagnostics of parallel performance in training large-scale dnn models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(7):3915–3929, 2024. 3

    2024

  55. [63]

    Weidinger, J

    L. Weidinger, J. Uesato, and et al. Taxonomy of risks posed by language models. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, p. 214–229. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2022. 1

    2022

  56. [64]

    Wu and D

    Z. Wu and D. C. Ong. On explaining your explanations of bert: An empir- ical study with sequence classification. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2101.00196, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    W. Yang, M. Liu, Z. Wang, and S. Liu. Foundation models meet visu- alizations: Challenges and opportunities. Computational Visual Media, 10(3):399–424, 2024. 3

    2024

  58. [66]

    C. Yeh, Y . Chen, A. Wu, C. Chen, F. Viégas, and M. Wattenberg. Atten- tionviz: A global view of transformer attention. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):262–272, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  59. [67]

    S. Yi, Y . Liu, Z. Sun, T. Cong, X. He, J. Song, K. Xu, and Q. Li. Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2407.04295, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    J. Yu, X. Lin, Z. Yu, and X. Xing. Gptfuzzer: Red teaming large language models with auto-generated jailbreak prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2309.10253, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Zhang, J

    X. Zhang, J. P. Ono, H. Song, L. Gou, K.-L. Ma, and L. Ren. Sliceteller: A data slice-driven approach for machine learning model validation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):842–852,

  62. [70]

    Zhang, G

    Z. Zhang, G. Shen, G. Tao, S. Cheng, and X. Zhang. Make them spill the beans! coercive knowledge extraction from (production) llms. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2312.04782, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    H. Zhao, H. Chen, F. Yang, N. Liu, H. Deng, H. Cai, S. Wang, D. Yin, and M. Du. Explainability for large language models: A survey. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 15(2), 2024. 2

    2024

  64. [72]

    Y . Zhao, W. Zhang, Y . Xie, A. Goyal, K. Kawaguchi, and M. Shieh. Understanding and enhancing safety mechanisms of LLMs via safety- specific neuron. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net, Singapore, 2025. 2

    2025

  65. [73]

    Y . Zhao, W. Zhang, Y . Xie, A. Goyal, K. Kawaguchi, and M. Shieh. Understanding and enhancing safety mechanisms of LLMs via safety- specific neuron. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net, Singapore, 2025. 6, 9

    2025

  66. [74]

    Z. Zhou, H. Yu, X. Zhang, R. Xu, F. Huang, and Y . Li. How alignment and jailbreak work: Explain LLM safety through intermediate hidden states. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pp. 2461–2488. Association for Computational Linguistics, M...

    2024

  67. [75]

    W. C. Zihan Zhou, Minfeng Zhu. A human-centric perspective on inter- pretability in large language models. Visual Informatics, 9(1):A1–A3,

  68. [76]

    A. Zou, Z. Wang, N. Carlini, M. Nasr, J. Z. Kolter, and M. Fredrikson. Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2307.15043, 2023. 2 A S UPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS This document provides the design alternatives of Neuron View t...

    2023 arXiv

  69. [2020]

    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AcKRB8wDpdaN6v6ru/ interpreting-gpt-the-logit-lens . 2

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.