← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2609.06934 · v3
The Geometry of Refusal: Why Post-Hoc Refusal Is Fragile and Pretraining-Time Refusal Persists
首次提交 2026-09-07 10:08
版本更新 2026-11-08 23:59
雷达观测 2026-11-10 12:16
摘要
Post-hoc safety training (RLHF, DPO) is the dominant way to align large language models, yet jailbreaks (Zou et al., 2023), fine-tuning attacks (Qi et al., 2024), and activation-space edits (Arditi et al., 2024) keep recovering the behaviors it was meant to remove. We give this fragility one geometric explanation and follow it into pretraining. We measure the safety update $Δ= W_{safe} - W_{base}$ against the curvature of the model's capabilities (the empirical Fisher of a capability loss). Across five model families, post-hoc safety lands in a suppression regime: $Δ$ is nearly orthogonal to the capability directions, and its small in-subspace part concentrates on a few high-curvature ones. The update is thin but sharp, a refusal gate laid over intact capabilities rather than erasure of them. A kernel-immobility lemma explains why such an update can only mask a capability, not remove it, and a little benign fine-tuning switches the gate off: 100 benign examples cut the AdvBench refusal of Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct and Llama-3-8B-Instruct by 35 to 38 pp. Following the account into pretraining, a pretraining-checkpoint sweep of OLMo-2-1B (Team OLMo et al., 2024) shows the features that refusal attaches to emerging in a sharp transition between 1B and 63B pretraining tokens. We then use the account constructively: models trained from scratch with safety co-training spread continuously across pretraining reach 87 to 98% AdvBench refusal that the same attack erodes by only 2 to 14 pp at every scale from 410M to 6.9B, at a small cost on short-answer capability probes; a windowed schedule of equal total safety weight installs no refusal. Persistence, not timing, decides whether refusal survives. It does not keep output safer: by a harmful-output classifier, the attack raises harmful completions by 8 to 12 pp after post-hoc safety and by 11 to 27 pp after co-training.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v3 · 2026-11-08 23:59 · 最新观测版本
The Geometry of Refusal: Why Post-Hoc Refusal Is Fragile and Pretraining-Time Refusal Persists
Post-hoc safety training (RLHF, DPO) is the dominant way to align large language models, yet jailbreaks (Zou et al., 2023), fine-tuning attacks (Qi et al., 2024), and activation-space edits (Arditi et al., 2024) keep recovering the behaviors it was meant to remove. We give this fragility one geometric explanation and follow it into pretraining. We measure the safety update $Δ= W_{safe} - W_{base}$ against the curvature of the model's capabilities (the empirical Fisher of a capability loss). Across five model families, post-hoc safety lands in a suppression regime: $Δ$ is nearly orthogonal to the capability directions, and its small in-subspace part concentrates on a few high-curvature ones. The update is thin but sharp, a refusal gate laid over intact capabilities rather than erasure of them. A kernel-immobility lemma explains why such an update can only mask a capability, not remove it, and a little benign fine-tuning switches the gate off: 100 benign examples cut the AdvBench refusal of Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct and Llama-3-8B-Instruct by 35 to 38 pp. Following the account into pretraining, a pretraining-checkpoint sweep of OLMo-2-1B (Team OLMo et al., 2024) shows the features that refusal attaches to emerging in a sharp transition between 1B and 63B pretraining tokens. We then use the account constructively: models trained from scratch with safety co-training spread continuously across pretraining reach 87 to 98% AdvBench refusal that the same attack erodes by only 2 to 14 pp at every scale from 410M to 6.9B, at a small cost on short-answer capability probes; a windowed schedule of equal total safety weight installs no refusal. Persistence, not timing, decides whether refusal survives. It does not keep output safer: by a harmful-output classifier, the attack raises harmful completions by 8 to 12 pp after post-hoc safety and by 11 to 27 pp after co-training.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗