Towards Physical Intuitions for Alignment Dynamics: A Case Study With Randomness Crystallization

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong alignment through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback, the alignment is often fragile under subsequent fine-tuning. Existing explanations either attribute alignment fragility to gradient geometry or characterize it as a distributional shift in model outputs, yet few provide a unified account that bridges parameter-space learning dynamics with function-space alignment behavior during fine-tuning. In this work, we introduce a tractable alignment score and derive its closed-form update during fine-tuning, yielding a unified framework for alignment dynamics. Our analysis decomposes alignment updates into two competing components: a \textbf{\color{red!60!black} Rebound Force}, governed jointly by the current alignment state and the narrowness of model distribution, and a \textbf{\color{green!60!black} Driving Force}, determined by how the training distribution aligns with outcome-conditioned posteriors over aligned and non-aligned completions. This decomposition explains why prior alignment can be reversed by later fine-tuning and why narrower posterior structure strengthens such reversal. Moreover, our framework predicts a \textbf{Rehearsal Priming Effect}: prior alignment leaves a latent posterior imprint that amplifies the effective Driving Force upon re-exposure, leading to faster re-alignment. We validate these predictions across safety alignment, emergent misalignment, and sentiment settings, demonstrating consistent alignment reversal and accelerated re-alignment under re-exposure. In addition, controlled experiments in safety alignment confirm the predicted dependence of rebound strength on posterior narrowness. Together, these results provide a unified dynamical perspective on how alignment is disrupted and reactivated during LLM fine-tuning.

Recent work has reported Emergent Misalignment (EM), where language models fine-tuned on narrow, domain-specific misaligned datasets abruptly acquire broadly misaligned behavior, alongside evidence that this behavior can be reversed through limited realignment. We systematically study repeated alignment and misalignment cycles using controlled fine-tuning loops while tracking behavioral performance, and LoRA representations throughout training. Although we reproduce EM, we find that both misalignment and realignment are highly sensitive to superficial dataset characteristics, with apparent rapid realignment largely disappearing after controlling for response-length differences. We further find that previously reported mechanistic signatures, including representational phase transitions in LoRA space, do not consistently correlate with behavioral misalignment across training. Our results suggest that current evidence for EM is less robust than previously claimed and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that carefully control for these surface level dataset artifacts to identify the robustness of the EM phenomenon.

Large language models are commonly aligned through supervised fine-tuning, yet little is known about how their internal representations evolve during this process. We study alignment dynamics using persistent homology by tracking the topology of activation spaces throughout fine-tuning. Across four transformer language models ranging from 1B to 7B parameters and three alignment objectives corresponding to helpful, harmless, and mixed training data, we find that the majority of topological reorganization occurs during the earliest stages of training. A dense checkpoint analysis reveals a transient peak in topological activity followed by rapid stabilization. We further show that different alignment objectives induce distinguishable topological trajectories, while instruction-tuned and pretrained models exhibit qualitatively different patterns of evolution. Our results suggest that persistent homology provides a complementary perspective on alignment, revealing representation-level changes that are not apparent from behavioral metrics alone.