We introduce SteeringSafety, a benchmark for evaluating representation steering methods across nine safety perspectives spanning 18 datasets. While prior work highlights the general capabilities of representation steering, we focus on safety perspectives including refusal, bias, hallucination, social behaviors, reasoning, epistemic integrity, and normative judgment. SteeringSafety provides modularized building blocks for state-of-the-art steering methods, enabling unified implementation of DIM, ACE, CAA, PCA, and LAT with recent enhancements such as conditional steering. Results on Gemma-2-2B, Llama-3.1-8B, and Qwen-2.5-7B show that strong steering performance depends on the pairing of method, model, and specific perspective. For instance, DIM is consistently effective, yet all methods exhibit substantial entanglement, where improving effectiveness on one safety perspective often significantly changes performance on others. Social behaviors are most vulnerable (degradation up to 76%), refusal steering (jailbreaking) frequently compromises normative judgment such as commonsense morality (up to 26%), and hallucination steering shifts political views unpredictably across models, ranging from a 25% shift to the right to a 28% shift to the left. These findings show the need to understand steering methods through multiple safety angles rather than a single target behavior.

翻译：暂无翻译