mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Fail-Closed Alignment for Large Language Models

arXiv 2602.16977 ↗First posted 19 Feb 2026cs.LG cs.CRcited by 2

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

We identify a structural weakness in current large language model (LLM) alignment: modern refusal mechanisms are fail-open. While existing approaches encode refusal behaviors across multiple latent features, suppressing a single dominant feature-via prompt-based jailbreaks-can cause alignment to collapse, leading to unsafe generation. Motivated by this, we propose fail-closed alignment as a design principle for robust LLM safety: refusal mechanisms should remain effective even under partial failures via redundant, independent causal pathways. We present a concrete instantiation of this principle: a progressive alignment framework that iteratively identifies and ablates previously learned refusal directions, forcing the model to reconstruct safety along new, independent subspaces. Across four jailbreak attacks, we achieve the strongest overall robustness while mitigating over-refusal and preserving generation quality, with small computational overhead. Our mechanistic analyses confirm that models trained with our method encode multiple, causally independent refusal directions that prompt-based jailbreaks cannot suppress simultaneously, providing empirical support for fail-closed alignment as a principled foundation for robust LLM safety.

Key facts. Cited by 2 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. Builds on 45 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Feb 2026.

Builds on

45 of 52 references.

Closest ancestors · 12

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025SOM Directions are Better than One: Multi-Directional Refusal Suppression in Language Models11 Nov
  2. 2025Beyond Surface Alignment: Rebuilding LLMs Safety Mechanism via Probabilistically Ablating Refusal Direction18 Sep
  3. 2025NeuroStrike: Neuron-Level Attacks on Aligned LLMs15 Sep
  4. 2025The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models: Concept Cones and Representational Independence24 Feb
  5. 2025The Hidden Dimensions of LLM Alignment: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Orthogonal Safety Directions13 Feb
  6. 2024NLSR: Neuron-Level Safety Realignment of Large Language Models Against Harmful Fine-Tuning17 Dec
  7. 2024Towards Understanding Safety Alignment: A Mechanistic Perspective from Safety Neurons20 Jun
  8. 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep10 Jun
  9. 2024OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models31 May
  10. 2024Assessing the Brittleness of Safety Alignment via Pruning and Low-Rank Modifications7 Feb
  11. 2024Intention Analysis Makes LLMs A Good Jailbreak Defender12 Jan
  12. 2023AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models3 Oct

Other references · 33

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
  3. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  4. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  5. 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,140
  6. 2018Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answeringcited by 2,114
  7. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
  8. 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,326
  9. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
  10. 2023A Simple and Effective Pruning Approach for Large Language Modelscited by 776
  11. 2023Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automaticallycited by 619
  12. 2023Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Studycited by 478
21 more
  1. 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 477
  2. 2023"Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Modelscited by 457
  3. 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakerscited by 302
  4. 2023A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Generalized Nested Jailbreak Prompts can Fool Large Language Models Easilycited by 242
  5. 2024SafeDecoding: Defending against Jailbreak Attacks via Safety-Aware Decodingcited by 233
  6. 2024SALAD-Bench: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Safety Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 225
  7. 2024ArtPrompt: ASCII Art-based Jailbreak Attacks against Aligned LLMscited by 197
  8. 2024COLD-Attack: Jailbreaking LLMs with Stealthiness and Controllabilitycited by 162
  9. 2024Latent Adversarial Training Improves Robustness to Persistent Harmful Behaviors in LLMscited by 158
  10. 2024Robust Prompt Optimization for Defending Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attackscited by 150
  11. 2024AutoDefense: Multi-Agent LLM Defense against Jailbreak Attackscited by 135
  12. 2024Efficient Adversarial Training in LLMs with Continuous Attackscited by 104
  13. 2024Reinforcement Learning for LLM Post-Training: A Surveycited by 91
  14. 2024GradSafe: Detecting Jailbreak Prompts for LLMs via Safety-Critical Gradient Analysiscited by 87
  15. 2024Fast Adversarial Attacks on Language Models In One GPU Minutecited by 85
  16. 2024Defending Against Unforeseen Failure Modes with Latent Adversarial Trainingcited by 82
  17. 2024Gradient Cuff: Detecting Jailbreak Attacks on Large Language Models by Exploring Refusal Loss Landscapescited by 63
  18. 2024Robust LLM safeguarding via refusal feature adversarial trainingcited by 60
  19. 2024Break the Breakout: Reinventing LM Defense Against Jailbreak Attacks with Self-Refinementcited by 25
  20. 2025MixAT: Combining Continuous and Discrete Adversarial Training for LLMscited by 10
  21. 2025Latent Adversarial Training Improves the Representation of Refusalcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026LLMs Can Unlearn Refusal with Only 1,000 Benign Samples
  2. 2025Improving LLM Safety Alignment with Dual-Objective Optimization
  3. 2026Why Do Aligned LLMs Remain Jailbreakable: Refusal-Escape Directions, Operator-Level Sources, and Safety-Utility Trade-off
  4. 2026SafeEvo: Deciphering the Safety Alignment Mechanism and Evolution in Language Models
  5. 2025From Threat to Tool: Leveraging Refusal-Aware Injection Attacks for Safety Alignment
  6. 2025Targeting Alignment: Extracting Safety Classifiers of Aligned LLMs
  7. 2025SABER: Uncovering Vulnerabilities in Safety Alignment via Cross-Layer Residual Connection
  8. 2025Mitigating Over-Refusal in Aligned Large Language Models via Inference-Time Activation Energy