mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Refusal Localizes, the Damage Relocates: Safety Layers Under Few-Sample Fine-Tuning

arXiv 2610.00320 ↗First posted 29 Sep 2026cs.CL cs.CR cs.LGcited by 0

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Fine-tuning adapts aligned large language models (LLMs) to downstream tasks, but a few dozen harmful examples can remove their refusal of harmful requests. Prior work localizes safety-related behavior to specific layers, directions, and tokens, suggesting targets for protection. We test whether successful localization and recovery support defenses that survive changes in the attack. Across six checkpoints from four model families, harmful and benign prompts remain linearly separable after attack, and patching full clean hidden states into the compromised model restores refusal at a reproducible transition depth. Building on a prior layer-freezing defense, we freeze every layer up to this depth and repeat the attack. At a hundred harmful examples, refusal remains near zero on all six checkpoints, with recovery transitions above the frozen boundary. In a second study, removing the update's top two singular directions restores refusal after short attention-only fine-tunes on four checkpoints. On Llama-3.1-8B, ordinary training changes weaken this repair and an attacker who spreads the update defeats it. A spectral detector calibrated on benign Llama fine-tunes misses most repair failures on that checkpoint. Localized freezing can nevertheless help preserve refusal when a few harmful examples enter training data unintentionally. These results show that an attacker can bypass a region identified by recovery and defeat a repair that works across multiple checkpoints, motivating five checks for defenses against adaptive fine-tuning. Code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/refusal-relocates.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 29 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

Builds on

29 of 33 references.

Closest ancestors · 9

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Safety Layers in Aligned Large Language Models: The Key to LLM Security30 Aug
  2. 2024Antidote: Post-fine-tuning Safety Alignment for Large Language Models against Harmful Fine-tuning18 Aug
  3. 2024PKU-SafeRLHF: Towards Multi-Level Safety Alignment for LLMs with Human Preference20 Jun
  4. 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep10 Jun
  5. 2024Vaccine: Perturbation-aware Alignment for Large Language Models against Harmful Fine-tuning Attack2 Feb
  6. 2023Removing RLHF Protections in GPT-4 via Fine-Tuning9 Nov
  7. 2023LoRA Fine-tuning Efficiently Undoes Safety Training in Llama 2-Chat 70B31 Oct
  8. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!5 Oct
  9. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul

Other references · 20

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
  3. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
  4. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
  5. 2018Obfuscated Gradients Give a False Sense of Security: Circumventing Defenses to Adversarial Examplescited by 1,268
  6. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 1,032
  7. 2024Yi: Open Foundation Models by 01.AIcited by 719
  8. 2020On Adaptive Attacks to Adversarial Example Defensescited by 555
  9. 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 505
  10. 2023Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methodscited by 359
  11. 20242 OLMo 2 Furiouscited by 340
  12. 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakerscited by 322
8 more
  1. 2023Does Localization Inform Editing? Surprising Differences in Causality-Based Localization vs. Knowledge Editing in Language Modelscited by 243
  2. 2024Tamper-Resistant Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMscited by 138
  3. 2024Safe LoRA: the Silver Lining of Reducing Safety Risks when Fine-tuning Large Language Modelscited by 125
  4. 2024Representation Noising: A Defence Mechanism Against Harmful Finetuningcited by 96
  5. 2024Booster: Tackling Harmful Fine-tuning for Large Language Models via Attenuating Harmful Perturbationcited by 92
  6. 2026Answer-Conditioned Chains of Thought Degrade Verifiable-Reasoning Distillation in Large Language Modelscited by 7
  7. 2025Cross-Lingual Optimization for Language Transfer in Large Language Modelscited by 2
  8. 2026Skin-Deep: A Geometric Diagnostic for Alignment Fragility in Large Language Model Representationscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Localizing Safety Alignment: MLP Layers and Mid-Network Blocks Encode Refusal Behavior in Large Language Models
  2. 2025An Embarrassingly Simple Defense Against LLM Abliteration Attacks
  3. 2026RefusalGuard: Geometry-Preserving Fine-Tuning for Safety in LLMs
  4. 2026Dynamic Adversarial Fine-Tuning Reorganizes Refusal Geometry
  5. 2026Beyond Shallow Alignment: How Post-Training Methods Determine Refusal Circuits And Steering Robustness
  6. 2026The Geometry of Refusal: Linear Instability in Safety-Aligned LLMs
  7. 2026When Safety Routing Breaks: Understanding Alignment Fragility under Benign Fine-Tuning
  8. 2025Refusal Direction is Universal Across Safety-Aligned Languages