Beyond Refusal: A Same-Lineage Study of Aligned and Abliterated LLMs for Vulnerability Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05842v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 05:04:48 GMT
• Title: Beyond Refusal: A Same-Lineage Study of Aligned and Abliterated LLMs for Vulnerability Analysis
• Abstract summary: We study whether refusal behavior remains intact (Aligned) or has been refusalablated (Abliterated) within same-lineage models.<n>We evaluate Aligned and Abliterated states on vulnerability detection, CWE attribution, vulnerableline localization, root-cause localization, and executable patch validation.
• Score: 31.25049774595995
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-assisted software security operates at a difficult boundary: the vulnerability-analysis terminology needed for legitimate code review, triage, and repair can closely resemble terminology associated with misuse. Existing safety and cybersecurity evaluations are difficult to interpret in this setting because they often compare unrelated model families, thereby conflating safety behavior with differences in architecture, scale, training data, and deployment. To isolate this factor, we study safety state: whether refusal behavior remains intact (Aligned) or has been refusal-ablated (Abliterated) within same-lineage models. We ask how this safety state affects defensive utility across software-security workflows. We compare aligned instruction-tuned models with publicly released refusal-ablated descendants from two model families, Gemma and Qwen. We evaluate Aligned and Abliterated states on vulnerability detection, CWE attribution, vulnerable-line localization, root-cause localization, and executable patch validation. We further treat prompt wording as a controlled framing dimension: prompts begin with neutral code-review language, add authorization context, and vary the density of cybersecurity terminology. In a Gemma-based Java/Vul4J repair-validation study, Abliterated achieves higher early-stage validation rates, with 67.8%, 65.0%, and 32.8% of patches judged usable, successfully applied, and successfully compiled, respectively, compared with 29.9%, 24.9%, and 9.0% for Aligned. In the Qwen pair, Abliterated improves localization performance, increasing line-level F1 from 2.08% to 3.91% and Top-1 accuracy from 4.10% to 6.95%. These findings suggest that evaluations of LLM-based security assistants should jointly measure whether models respond, whether their usable responses are correct, and whether their outputs remain actionable across the engineering workflow.

Related papers

• Vulnerability Localization Benchmark: Measuring Agentic Security Analysis at Repository Scale [54.83971397981572]
  Language-model agents increasingly operate over complete software repositories.<n> cybersecurity evaluations measure whether they can detect, reproduce, or repair vulnerabilities rather than whether they can locate the relevant code.<n>We study vulnerability localization: given a weakness class and an unfamiliar repository, identify the implementation files associated with that weakness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T17:44:51Z)
• Validity-Aware Jailbreak Evaluation for Large Language Models [13.23443638650052]
  We propose a verification-centric jailbreak evaluation framework that decomposes responses into ordered steps and evaluates both validity and correctness.<n>SEAV combines semantic interpretation with retrieval-grounded verification using external knowledge sources.<n>We show that enforcing correctness substantially reshapes measured robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T23:57:53Z)
• Converted, Not Equivalent: Benchmarking Codebase Conversion via Observational Equivalence [56.25095230687242]
  Coding agents often over-trust their own local validation routines and declare success on artifacts that satisfy surface checks.<n>This problem is especially acute in conversion, where prior evaluation is outcome-driven.<n>Across blind conversion attempts, the best system reaches 26.7--28.9% overall pass rate despite Spec pass rates up to 91.1%.<n>This suggests that failures stem more from contract-misaligned self-validation than from limited budget or backbone strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T19:57:15Z)
• Verify Before You Fix: Agentic Execution Grounding for Trustworthy Cross-Language Code Analysis [0.0]
  We build a unified cross-language vulnerability lifecycle framework for software vulnerability analysis.<n>We achieve 89.84-92.02% intra-language detection accuracy and 74.43-80.12% zero-shot cross-language F1.<n>These results demonstrate that execution-grounded closed-loop reasoning is a principled and practically deployable mechanism for trustworthy LLM-driven agentic AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T20:22:23Z)
• SecPI: Secure Code Generation with Reasoning Models via Security Reasoning Internalization [50.71047638695205]
  Reasoning language models (RLMs) are increasingly used in programming.<n>Yet, even state-of-the-art RLMs frequently introduce critical security vulnerabilities in generated code.<n>We present SecPI, a fine-tuning pipeline that teaches RLMs to internalize structured security reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-04T04:29:11Z)
• Measuring and Exploiting Confirmation Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review [6.417595678110472]
  We study whether confirmation bias affects LLM-based vulnerability detection, and whether this failure mode can be exploited in software supply-chain attacks.<n>Study 1 quantifies confirmation bias through controlled experiments on 250 CVE vulnerability/patch pairs evaluated across four state-of-the-art models under five framing conditions for the review prompt.<n>Study 2 evaluates exploitability in practice mimicking adversarial pull requests that reintroduce known vulnerabilities while framed as security improvements or urgent functionality fixes via their pull request metadata.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T10:40:27Z)
• AI Security Beyond Core Domains: Resume Screening as a Case Study of Adversarial Vulnerabilities in Specialized LLM Applications [71.27518152526686]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at text comprehension and generation, making them ideal for automated tasks like code review and content moderation.<n>LLMs can be manipulated by "adversarial instructions" hidden in input data, such as resumes or code, causing them to deviate from their intended task.<n>This paper introduces a benchmark to assess this vulnerability in resume screening, revealing attack success rates exceeding 80% for certain attack types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T08:42:09Z)
• VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection [55.957275374847484]
  VulAgent is a multi-agent vulnerability detection framework based on hypothesis validation.<n>It implements a semantics-sensitive, multi-view detection pipeline, each aligned to a specific analysis perspective.<n>On average, VulAgent improves overall accuracy by 6.6%, increases the correct identification rate of vulnerable--fixed code pairs by up to 450%, and reduces the false positive rate by about 36%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T02:25:38Z)
• VADER: A Human-Evaluated Benchmark for Vulnerability Assessment, Detection, Explanation, and Remediation [0.8087612190556891]
  VADER comprises 174 real-world software vulnerabilities, each carefully curated from GitHub and annotated by security experts.<n>For each vulnerability case, models are tasked with identifying the flaw, classifying it using Common Weaknession (CWE), explaining its underlying cause, proposing a patch, and formulating a test plan.<n>Using a one-shot prompting strategy, we benchmark six state-of-the-art LLMs (Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.5, Grok 3 Beta, and o3) on VADER.<n>Our results show that current state-of-the-
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T01:20:44Z)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• Uncertainty is Fragile: Manipulating Uncertainty in Large Language Models [79.76293901420146]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed across various high-stakes domains, where the reliability of their outputs is crucial. Our research investigates the fragility of uncertainty estimation and explores potential attacks. We demonstrate that an attacker can embed a backdoor in LLMs, which, when activated by a specific trigger in the input, manipulates the model's uncertainty without affecting the final output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T23:41:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.