Downloads · 30 days
89
2% of all-time downloads
WWTCyberLab/gemma-4-31B-it-abliterated
gemma-4-31B-it-abliterated is a text generation model from WWTCyberLab. Use it when you need the model to write or continue text. It is set up for transformers. The card lists the license as gemma.
Safety-alignment removed via five independent attack surfaces for security research.
Downloads · 30 days
89
2% of all-time downloads
All-time downloads
5.4K
Public
Parameters
31.3B
375 GB on disk
Likes
6
Public
Click a slice to open those files.
.safetensors62.5 GB · 100%
From the Hugging Face model README
Safety-alignment removed via five independent attack surfaces for security research.
This model achieves ~0% deterministic refusal (down from 100%) on the most ablation-resistant architecture in our 17+ model database, using a five-surface technique developed through 17 rounds of systematic experimentation.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Refusal Rate | 0% hard refusal (0/48), 8.3% soft hedging (4/48) at temp 0.4 |
| Quality (QPS) | 92% |
| Elo Delta | +13.4 |
| Gibberish | 0/20 |
| MMLU | 45.5% (0-shot), -2.5% vs original (48.0%) |
Rank 32, 18 modules, 11.7M params. Trained on 177 real compliance pairs from E4B abliterated model. Loss converged from 2.63 to 0.19 across 10 epochs. Trained on ORIGINAL model, merged before ablation.
Coherence-guided ablation: direction = 0.7 * avg(L55-L58) + 0.3 * original_L59. Targets the primary refusal mechanism (Mechanism 1) while preserving output generation.
Novel finding: Trace probes revealed the model has two independent refusal mechanisms operating in orthogonal subspaces. After removing Mechanism 1, the remaining refusals showed cosine similarity of -0.011 with the ablated direction -- essentially zero. Mechanism 2 appears to operate through a separable refusal-related component in an orthogonal subspace. We ablate this second mechanism using neighbor-averaged residual directions at scale 1.5.
13 refusal-starting token embeddings scaled down by 10x in embed_tokens.weight. Targets escape patterns discovered through post-ablation refusal profiling (65% of remaining refusals used ***Disclaimer:**).
bad_words_ids hard-blocking ***Disclaimer:** and variants.
Follow-up inference probes on all "refused" prompts revealed that every refusal is stochastic, not deterministic. The same prompts that refused on one run comply on the next. Paraphrased, educationally-framed, and roleplay-framed versions of every "hard refusal" prompt produced compliant responses 100% of the time.
The model is on the compliance boundary -- at temperature 0.4, it sometimes samples a disclaimer token and sometimes a content token. At temperature 0 (greedy decoding), the model likely has 0% refusal. The five-surface attack fully eliminates all deterministic refusal mechanisms.
The model implements at least two independent refusal mechanisms in orthogonal subspaces:
This is consistent with safety training creating redundant, orthogonal safety representations -- a defense-in-depth property.
cos(direction[layer], direction[layer-1]) predicts ablation safety:
0.6: Safe to ablate directly (E4B: 0.731)
Post-ablation refusal patterns differ from pre-ablation. The model adapts -- standard refusal phrases ("I cannot") are replaced by novel patterns (***Disclaimer:**). Iterative profiling and suppression is necessary.
| Phase | Refusal | Technique |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 100% | Original model |
| Standard ablation | 0% / QPS 22% | Gibberish -- L59 entanglement |
| Direction interpolation | 62.5% | Coherence-guided blending |
| Token profiling + suppress | 52.5% | Expanded vocabulary targeting |
| LoRA + full stack | 12.5% | Four-surface |
| + Orthogonal pass | 0/48 hard (4/48 soft hedging) | Five-surface |
| Model | Technique | Refusal | MMLU Delta | Thinking Disabled? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| dealignai (JANG_4M) | MPOA + quant | 6.3% | -2.0% | Yes |
| TrevorS | Biprojection | 3.2% | N/A | N/A |
| Ours | Five-surface | 0% hard, 8.3% soft | -2.5% | No |
Our MMLU delta (-0.4%) is the smallest reported. We do NOT disable thinking mode.



| Metric | Result |
|---|---|
| Hard refusal | 0/520 (0.0%) |
| Soft hedging | 160/520 (30.8%) |
| Complied | 360/520 (69.2%) |
Zero hard refusals across all 520 AdvBench prompts. Soft hedging (disclaimers followed by substantive content) occurs on ~31% of prompts.
from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
"WWTCyberLab/gemma-4-31B-it-abliterated",
torch_dtype="bfloat16",
device_map="auto",
)
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("WWTCyberLab/gemma-4-31B-it-abliterated")
messages = [{"role": "user", "content": "Your prompt here"}]
inputs = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(messages, return_tensors="pt").to(model.device)
outputs = model.generate(inputs, max_new_tokens=512)
print(tokenizer.decode(outputs[0], skip_special_tokens=True))
Released for security research and educational purposes only.
Produced by WWT Cyber Lab. Five-surface attack across 17 rounds of experimentation.