DOG-DPO:Dynamic Optimization in Geometry for Safety Alignment
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks
Abstract (arXiv)
Safety alignment for large language models relies on preference data, but current pipelines often train on large, redundant datasets. Existing data selection methods typically score each preference pair independently, collapsing directional preference information into scalar quality or diversity scores. This sample-centric view is especially limiting in multi-dataset settings, where shared safety directions coexist with dataset-specific residual risks. We propose DOG-DPO, a training-free data selection framework that treats preference pairs as structured geometric signals. DOG-DPO first represents each preference pair as a direction in model representation space. It then decomposes multi-dataset preference geometry into a global anchor subspace and dataset-specific residual subspaces. Finally, it selects subsets by maximizing diversity-based coverage, encouraging broad, non-redundant coverage of alignment directions before DPO training. Across six safety benchmarks and two model backbones, DOG-DPO achieves a strong utility-robustness trade-off using only 11% of the preference pairs. It recovers most of the safety gains of full-data training while remaining entirely teacher-free, training-free, and substantially faster than representative selection baselines.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 15 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2026.
Builds on
15 of 23 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Cat-DPO: Category-Adaptive Safety Alignment19 Apr
- 2025SafeDPO: A Simple Approach to Direct Preference Optimization with Enhanced Safety26 May
Other references · 13
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
- 2022ToxiGen: A Large-Scale Machine-Generated Dataset for Adversarial and Implicit Hate Speech Detectioncited by 422
- 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuningcited by 364
- 2023Data Diversity Matters for Robust Instruction Tuningcited by 76
- 2025DriveDPO: Policy Learning via Safety DPO For End-to-End Autonomous Drivingcited by 39
- 2025Principled Data Selection for Alignment: The Hidden Risks of Difficult Examplescited by 37
- 2024TAGCOS: Task-agnostic Gradient Clustered Coreset Selection for Instruction Tuning Datacited by 30
- 2025Measuring Data Diversity for Instruction Tuning: A Systematic Analysis and A Reliable Metriccited by 24
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Revisiting Robustness for LLM Safety Alignment via Selective Geometry Control
- 2026LSSF: Safety Alignment for Large Language Models through Low-Rank Safety Subspace Fusion
- 2026Safeguarding LLM Fine-tuning via Push-Pull Distributional Alignment
- 2026Aligned but Fragile: Enhancing LLM Safety Robustness via Zeroth-Order Optimization
- 2026Mechanistic Analysis of Alignment Algorithms in Language Models
- 2025The Blessing and Curse of Dimensionality in Safety Alignment
- 2026Improving Safety Alignment via Balanced Direct Preference Optimization
- 2025Safety Alignment Depth in Large Language Models: A Markov Chain Perspective