mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Dynamic Adversarial Fine-Tuning Reorganizes Refusal Geometry

arXiv 2604.27019 ↗First posted 29 Apr 2026cs.LG cs.CL cs.CRcited by 1

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Safety-aligned language models must refuse harmful requests without broad over-refusal, but it remains unclear how dynamic adversarial fine-tuning changes refusal-control carriers: Kullback--Leibler (KL)-constrained directions or small subspaces that causally modulate refusal without large safe-prompt distribution shifts. We study a 7B backbone under supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Robust Refusal Dynamic Defense (R2D2), aligning HarmBench, StrongREJECT, and XSTest evaluations with five-anchor geometry measurements, causal interventions, and sparse adaptive stress tests. R2D2 drives fixed-source HarmBench attack success to zero at early checkpoints; however, these checkpoints also exhibit maximal XSTest refusal and fail a benign-utility audit. Later checkpoints partially recover utility-facing behavior while reopening attack success, with adaptive GCG attack success rate rising to 0.415 at step 250 and 0.613 at step 500. Internally, R2D2 preserves a late-layer admissible refusal-control carrier through step 100 and then relocates the best admissible carrier to an early layer; SFT relocates earlier yet remains less robust. Effective rank stays near 1.24, and SFT shows larger principal-angle drift, arguing against both dimensional expansion and drift magnitude as sufficient explanations. Causal interventions support a low-dimensional but utility-coupled carrier. These results support a geometry-reorganization account of R2D2 along a robustness--utility frontier, without establishing adaptive robustness.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 18 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2026.

Builds on

18 of 26 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Beyond Surface Alignment: Rebuilding LLMs Safety Mechanism via Probabilistically Ablating Refusal Direction18 Sep
  2. 2025The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models: Concept Cones and Representational Independence24 Feb
  3. 2024How Alignment and Jailbreak Work: Explain LLM Safety through Intermediate Hidden States9 Jun
  4. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!5 Oct
  5. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul

Other references · 13

  1. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
  2. 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
  3. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
  4. 2024The Art of Saying No: Contextual Noncompliance in Language Modelscited by 100
  5. 2024Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreak Attacks via Layer-specific Editingcited by 77
  6. 2025LLMs Encode Harmfulness and Refusal Separatelycited by 75
  7. 2024Towards Understanding Jailbreak Attacks in LLMs: A Representation Space Analysiscited by 61
  8. 2024Robust LLM safeguarding via refusal feature adversarial trainingcited by 60
  9. 2025Understanding and Mitigating Overrefusal in LLMs from an Unveiling Perspective of Safety Decision Boundarycited by 17
  10. 2025COSMIC: Generalized Refusal Direction Identification in LLM Activationscited by 15
  11. 2025Jailbreak Attack Initializations as Extractors of Compliance Directionscited by 10
  12. 2025Spectral Scaling Laws in Language Models: How Effectively Do Feed-Forward Networks Use Their Latent Space?cited by 8
1 more
  1. 2025Anchoring Refusal Direction: Mitigating Safety Risks in Tuning via Projection Constraintcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026From Refusal Geometry to Safety Geometry: Harmfulness--Refusal Coupling under Dynamic Adversarial Fine-Tuning
  2. 2026Refusal geometry reflects refusal training: diverse refusal prefixes can raise stable rank and weaken refusal vector ablation attacks
  3. 2026RefusalGuard: Geometry-Preserving Fine-Tuning for Safety in LLMs
  4. 2026Refusal Localizes, the Damage Relocates: Safety Layers Under Few-Sample Fine-Tuning
  5. 2026Beyond Shallow Alignment: How Post-Training Methods Determine Refusal Circuits And Steering Robustness
  6. 2026Efficient Refusal Ablation in LLM through Optimal Transport
  7. 2026From Refusal Tokens to Refusal Control: Discovering and Steering Category-Specific Refusal Directions
  8. 2026When Safety Routing Breaks: Understanding Alignment Fragility under Benign Fine-Tuning