mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AI Alignment Strategies from a Risk Perspective: Independent Safety Mechanisms or Shared Failures?

arXiv 2510.11235 ↗First posted 13 Oct 2025cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI alignment research aims to develop techniques to ensure that AI systems do not cause harm. However, every alignment technique has failure modes, which are conditions in which there is a non-negligible chance that the technique fails to provide safety. As a strategy for risk mitigation, the AI safety community has increasingly adopted a defense-in-depth framework: Conceding that there is no single technique which guarantees safety, defense-in-depth consists in having multiple redundant protections against safety failure, such that safety can be maintained even if some protections fail. However, the success of defense-in-depth depends on how (un)correlated failure modes are across alignment techniques. For example, if all techniques had the exact same failure modes, the defense-in-depth approach would provide no additional protection at all. In this paper, we analyze 7 representative alignment techniques and 7 failure modes to understand the extent to which they overlap. We then discuss our results' implications for understanding the current level of risk and how to prioritize AI alignment research in the future.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 45 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2025.

Builds on

45 of 65 references.

References · 45

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
  3. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
  4. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
  5. 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
  6. 2023Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 743
  7. 2020Out-of-Distribution Generalization via Risk Extrapolation (REx)cited by 737
  8. 2023RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedbackcited by 615
  9. 2024RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modelingcited by 480
  10. 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 478
  11. 2023Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervisioncited by 445
  12. 2018AI safety via debatecited by 384
33 more
  1. 2021Flow Network based Generative Models for Non-Iterative Diverse Candidate Generationcited by 384
  2. 2022Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluatorscited by 372
  3. 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 316
  4. 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakerscited by 302
  5. 2023AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 256
  6. 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 222
  7. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
  8. 2025Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMscited by 158
  9. 2025Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AIcited by 150
  10. 2018Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak expertscited by 139
  11. 2021Goal Misgeneralization in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 122
  12. 2024Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilitiescited by 121
  13. 2022Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?cited by 101
  14. 2024On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMscited by 94
  15. 2023Scheming AIs: Will AIs fake alignment during training in order to get power?cited by 90
  16. 2025Persona Features Control Emergent Misalignmentcited by 76
  17. 2025A Survey on Sparse Autoencoders: Interpreting the Internal Mechanisms of Large Language Modelscited by 73
  18. 2025Superintelligent Agents Pose Catastrophic Risks: Can Scientist AI Offer a Safer Path?cited by 70
  19. 2023Scalable AI Safety via Doubly-Efficient Debatecited by 54
  20. 2025An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Securitycited by 42
  21. 2024Two Types of AI Existential Risk: Decisive and Accumulativecited by 21
  22. 2024Weak-to-Strong Generalization Through the Data-Centric Lenscited by 21
  23. 2025Incomplete Tasks Induce Shutdown Resistance in Some Frontier LLMscited by 16
  24. 2025An alignment safety case sketch based on debatecited by 12
  25. 2022Researching Alignment Research: Unsupervised Analysiscited by 7
  26. 2025Superintelligence Strategy: Expert Versioncited by 6
  27. 2024The Manhattan Trap: Why a Race to Artificial Superintelligence is Self-Defeatingcited by 4
  28. 2025Normative Conflicts and Shallow AI Alignmentcited by 4
  29. 2024AI Safety: A Climb To Armageddon?cited by 2
  30. 2024Towards Shutdownable Agents via Stochastic Choicecited by 2
  31. 2025Shutdownable Agents through POST-Agencycited by 2
  32. 2025Against racing to AGI: Cooperation, deterrence, and catastrophic riskscited by 2
  33. 2025Superalignment with Dynamic Human Valuescited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.