mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

RefusalGuard: Geometry-Preserving Fine-Tuning for Safety in LLMs

arXiv 2605.01913 ↗First posted 3 May 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.CEcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Fine-tuning safety-aligned language models for downstream tasks often leads to substantial degradation of refusal behavior, making models vulnerable to adversarial misuse. While prior work has shown that safety-relevant features are encoded in structured representations within the model's activation space, how these representations change during fine-tuning and why alignment degrades remains poorly understood. In this work, we investigate the representation-level mechanisms underlying alignment degradation. Our analysis shows that standard fine-tuning induces systematic drift in safety-relevant representations, distorts their geometric structure, and introduces interference between task optimization and safety features. These effects collectively lead to increased harmful compliance. Motivated by these findings, we introduce REFUSALGUARD, a representation-level fine-tuning framework that preserves safety-relevant structure during model adaptation. Our approach constrains updates in hidden representation space, ensuring that safety-mediating components remain stable while allowing task-specific learning in complementary directions. We evaluate REFUSALGUARD across multiple model families, including LLaMA, Gemma, and Qwen, on adversarial safety benchmarks such as AdvBench, DirectHarm4, and JailbreakBench, as well as downstream utility tasks. Our approach achieves attack success rates comparable to base safety-aligned models while maintaining competitive task performance, significantly outperforming baselines.

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 28 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 May 2026.

Builds on

28 of 32 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Beyond Surface Alignment: Rebuilding LLMs Safety Mechanism via Probabilistically Ablating Refusal Direction18 Sep
  2. 2025Why LLM Safety Guardrails Collapse After Fine-tuning: A Similarity Analysis Between Alignment and Fine-tuning Datasets5 Jun
  3. 2025Safety is Not Only About Refusal: Reasoning-Enhanced Fine-tuning for Interpretable LLM Safety6 Mar
  4. 2025The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models: Concept Cones and Representational Independence24 Feb
  5. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!5 Oct
  6. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul

Other references · 22

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  3. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  4. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  5. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  6. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  7. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
  8. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
  9. 2024JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Modelscited by 494
  10. 2024Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attackscited by 450
  11. 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakerscited by 302
  12. 2024When Scaling Meets LLM Finetuning: The Effect of Data, Model and Finetuning Methodcited by 201
10 more
  1. 2024ReFT: Representation Finetuning for Language Modelscited by 186
  2. 2023The ConceptARC Benchmark: Evaluating Understanding and Generalization in the ARC Domaincited by 97
  3. 2024Keeping LLMs Aligned After Fine-tuning: The Crucial Role of Prompt Templatescited by 94
  4. 2024Robust LLM safeguarding via refusal feature adversarial trainingcited by 60
  5. 2025Taxonomy, Opportunities, and Challenges of Representation Engineering for Large Language Modelscited by 29
  6. 2025Representation Bending for Large Language Model Safetycited by 28
  7. 2024Refusal in LLMs is an Affine Functioncited by 26
  8. 2025Fine-Tuning Lowers Safety and Disrupts Evaluation Consistencycited by 25
  9. 2025COSMIC: Generalized Refusal Direction Identification in LLM Activationscited by 15
  10. 2025AlignGuard-LoRA: Alignment-Preserving Fine-Tuning via Fisher-Guided Decomposition and Riemannian-Geodesic Collision Regularizationcited by 4

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. 2026Understanding the Effects of Safety Unalignment on Large Language Models
  2. 2026Understanding and Preserving Safety in Fine-Tuned LLMs
  3. 2026When Safety Routing Breaks: Understanding Alignment Fragility under Benign Fine-Tuning
  4. 2025The Hidden Dimensions of LLM Alignment: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Orthogonal Safety Directions
  5. 2026From Refusal Geometry to Safety Geometry: Harmfulness--Refusal Coupling under Dynamic Adversarial Fine-Tuning
  6. 2026Few Tokens, Big Leverage: Preserving Safety Alignment by Constraining Safety Tokens during Fine-tuning
  7. 2026The Geometry of Refusal: Linear Instability in Safety-Aligned LLMs
  8. 2026Dynamic Adversarial Fine-Tuning Reorganizes Refusal Geometry