LLM Safety Alignment is Divergence Estimation in Disguise

We present a theoretical framework showing that popular LLM alignment methods—including RLHF and its variants—can be understood as divergence estimators between aligned (safe or preferred) and unaligned (harmful or less-preferred) distributions. This perspective explains the emergence of separation in the latent space between safe and harmful prompts after alignment.

As an application of our general divergence framework, we propose KLDO, a novel KL divergence-based alignment method, and empirically validate its effectiveness.

We further show that using compliance–refusal datasets, rather than standard preference-based datasets, leads to stronger separation and improved safety alignment.

Finally, to quantify the separation effect, we propose a distance-based metric in the prompt representation space, which also acts as a statistically significant indicator for model safety.