Early vision layers enable strong bidirectional refusal control in VLMs
The claim
Early vision layers of frozen VLMs support strong bidirectional refusal control via activation steering
Published as: “Depth-Dependent Safety Geometry in Vision-Language Models: Layer-Wise Localization and Bidirectional Refusal Control”
So what
The work suggests that inference-time stabilization of safety-sensitive representations is possible, but also highlights a white-box attack surface that could be exploited to bypass refusals.
The five-minute version
Early vision layers in frozen VLMs enable strong bidirectional refusal control via directional steering, achieving unsafe rejection rates from 6% up to 96%, while later layers respond more to activation magnitude scaling but incur a large safety-selectivity trade-off. The evidence comes from layer-wise activation divergence analysis and causal interventions on Qwen3-VL-4B, with cross-model validation on InternVL2.5-4B, showing consistent depth-dependent geometry but limited steering effectiveness in deeper layers.
What they found 2
- Early vision layers support strong bidirectional refusal control through directional steering, achieving unsafe rejection rates between 6% and 96%
“early vision layers support strong bidirectional refusal control through directional steering, with unsafe rejection spanning 6%-96%, whereas later layers are more responsive to activation magnitude scaling and exhibit a substantial safety-selectivity trade-off.”
- Later vision layers are more responsive to activation magnitude scaling but exhibit a substantial safety-selectivity trade-off, reaching 96% unsafe rejection with high false rejection
“selected later layers are more responsive to activation magnitude scaling, reaching 96% unsafe rejection at the cost of elevated false rejection.”
What undercuts it the paper’s own results
- Later layers are comparatively insensitive to directional steering, with URR remaining near baseline across the tested strengths.
- Vision Layers 18-22: ... SRR simultaneously rises to 91% on UnsafeBench while remaining 8-9% on GCC, revealing a substantial safety-selectivity trade-off.
Stated limits 2
- Constructing an end-to-end input-level attack that reproduces these representation shifts is outside the scope of this work.
- These results provide cross-model representational evidence for qualitatively recurring depth-dependent safety geometry, but not causal equivalence; steering and scaling interventions are evaluated only on Qwen3-VL-4B.
What’s new here 4
- Provides an inference-time framework to locate and manipulate safety-sensitive representations without retraining.
- Distinguishes representational separability from causal controllability across vision encoder depth.
- Demonstrates bidirectional refusal control via Concept Activation Steering in early vision layers.
- Identifies a representation-level attack surface specific to depth-dependent safety geometry.
Threat model stated by the source
Artifacts & methods 9
- Inference-time framework for localizing safety-sensitive representationssystem
- Activation divergence analysis (Mean Angular Difference)
- Concept Activation Steering
- Activation magnitude scaling (parameter scaling)
- Qwen3-VL-4Bsystem
- InternVL2.5-4Bsystem
- UnsafeBenchdataset
- Google Conceptual Captions (GCC)dataset
- MMLUdataset
