The Geometry of Alignment Collapse: When Fine-Tuning Breaks Safety
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Fine-tuning aligned language models on benign tasks unpredictably degrades safety guardrails, even when training data contains no harmful content and developers have no adversarial intent. We show that the prevailing explanation, that fine-tuning updates should be orthogonal to safety-critical directions in high-dimensional parameter space, offers false reassurance: we show this orthogonality is structurally unstable and collapses under the dynamics of gradient descent. We then resolve this through a novel geometric analysis, proving that alignment concentrates in low-dimensional subspaces with sharp curvature, creating a brittle structure that first-order methods cannot detect or defend. While initial fine-tuning updates may indeed avoid these subspaces, the curvature of the fine-tuning loss generates second-order acceleration that systematically steers trajectories into alignment-sensitive regions. We formalize this mechanism through the Alignment Instability Condition, three geometric properties that, when jointly satisfied, lead to safety degradation. Our main result establishes a quartic scaling law: alignment loss grows with the fourth power of training time, governed by the sharpness of alignment geometry and the strength of curvature coupling between the fine-tuning task and safety-critical parameters. These results expose a structural blind spot in the current safety paradigm. The dominant approaches to safe fine-tuning address only the initial snapshot of a fundamentally dynamic problem. Alignment fragility is not a bug to be patched; it is an intrinsic geometric property of gradient descent on curved manifolds. Our results motivate the development of curvature-aware methods, and we hope will further enable a shift in alignment safety analysis from reactive red-teaming to predictive diagnostics for open-weight model deployment.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2026.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Explaining and Preventing Alignment Collapse in Iterative RLHFcited by 3
- 2026The Geometric Canary: Predicting Steerability and Detecting Drift via Representational Stabilitycited by 0
- 2026What Shapes Emergent Misalignment? Insights from Training Dynamics, Model Priors, and Datacited by 0
- 2026When Safety Routing Breaks: Understanding Alignment Fragility under Benign Fine-Tuningcited by 0
- 2026When Safety Routing Breaks: Understanding Alignment Fragility under Benign Fine-Tuning1 Sep 2026
- 2026What Shapes Emergent Misalignment? Insights from Training Dynamics, Model Priors, and Data18 Jun 2026
- 2026Explaining and Preventing Alignment Collapse in Iterative RLHF5 May 2026
- 2026The Geometric Canary: Predicting Steerability and Detecting Drift via Representational Stability20 Apr 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Curvature-Aware Safety Restoration In LLMs Fine-Tuning
- 2026Understanding and Preserving Safety in Fine-Tuned LLMs
- 2026Safety Anchor: Defending Harmful Fine-tuning via Geometric Bottlenecks
- 2026Narrow Fine-Tuning Erodes Safety Alignment in Vision-Language Agents
- 2025Gradient Surgery for Safe LLM Fine-Tuning
- 2025Probing the Robustness of Large Language Models Safety to Latent Perturbations
- 2025Re-Emergent Misalignment: How Narrow Fine-Tuning Erodes Safety Alignment in LLMs
- 2024Navigating the Safety Landscape: Measuring Risks in Finetuning Large Language Models