arXiv (All)
open access
Beyond Shallow Alignment: How Post-Training Methods Determine Refusal Circuits And Steering Robustness
How do the methods used to train language models to refuse harmful requests shape how that refusal actually works inside the model? We compare three post-training methods - supervised fine-tuning, reasoning-augmented fine-tuning (training on reasoning chains that justify a safety decision), and pref
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Refusal Localizes, the Damage Relocates: Safety Layers Under Few-Sample Fine-Tuning#1154943
- Safety Reconstructed: Generative Modeling via Masked Diffusion Builds Strong Safety Guardrails#1118707
- Refuse without Refusal: A Structural Analysis of Safety-Tuning Responses for Reducing False Refusals in Language Models#971391
- Refuse without Refusal: A Structural Analysis of Safety-Tuning Responses for Reducing False Refusals in Language Models#965979
- Hard Negatives Reveal What Easy Negatives Hide: Cross-Lingual Harmfulness Representations Degrade with Resource Tier Under Hard Negatives#1064302
Record · ID 926759
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive