'AI Alignment Strategies from a Risk Perspective: Independent Safety Mechanisms or Shared Failures?' arXiv paper analyzes 7 alignment techniques against 7 failure modes
The arXiv paper 2510.11235 analyzes 7 representative AI alignment techniques against 7 failure modes to determine which combinations have correlated vs independent failure surfaces. The substantive contribution: identifying which alignment-stack combinations provide genuine defense-in-depth vs sharing failure modes that compound rather than compensate.
The substantive piece is the defense-in-depth analysis for alignment stacks. Pre-2026 alignment research assumed that stacking multiple techniques (RLHF + constitutional AI + interpretability + cross-lab eval) provides additive safety improvement. The paper challenges that assumption empirically — some technique combinations have correlated failure modes that don't compound to independent defense layers. Identifying which combinations actually compound vs which share failure surfaces is load-bearing for safety-architecture decisions.
The procurement read for safety-engineering decisions is that alignment-stack composition needs to be evaluated as a system, not as independent layers. Anthropic's AAR program and the cross-lab agentic misalignment stress test together provide the empirical surface for evaluating alignment-stack composition. This paper provides the analytical framework for interpreting those empirical results.