Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study reveals that benign fine-tuning significantly compromises the safety alignment of large language models (LLMs) by introducing fragility in refusal behavior, which is explained through a Fisher-geometric lens rather than the commonly cited gradient conflict. The authors demonstrate that after 100 benign fine-tuning examples, the safety geometry becomes flatter, leading to a selective re-sharpening of output-routing pathways that results in a high attack success rate while only mildly degrading general utility. Additionally, they find that techniques like LoRA and ASAM can mitigate early safety collapse, although their effectiveness diminishes with increased fine-tuning scale, highlighting the nuanced dynamics of safety alignment in LLMs.
Benign fine-tuning can lead to a dramatic collapse in safety alignment, revealing a fragile interplay between output-routing pathways and model safety.
Benign fine-tuning severely weakens the safety alignment of large language models (LLMs), so we study why refusal behavior is so fragile. While prior work often attributes this failure to gradient conflict, we propose a fundamentally different Fisher-geometric explanation: safety Fisher is low-rank, and alignment makes the safety geometry flatter while preserving an output-routing pathway. After 100 benign fine-tuning examples, this pathway is selectively re-sharpened in output-side MLP modules, explaining the asymmetric fragility: safety can collapse to high attack success rates, while general utility degrades mildly. The routing view also explains why few safety examples can restore refusal behavior, indicating that internal safety-relevant representations are preserved. Finally, we show that LoRA and ASAM mitigate early collapse by suppressing output-side sharpness, but their protection weakens at larger fine-tuning scales. Overall, safety failure is best understood as a disruption of a low-rank output-routing mechanism
