Fundamental Limitations in Pointwise Defences of LLM Finetuning APIs
Xander Davies, Eric Winsor, Alexandra Souly, Tomek Korbak, Robert Kirk, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Yarin Gal
Abstract
LLM developers deploy technical mitigations to prevent fine-tuning misuse attacks, attacks in which adversaries evade safeguards by fine-tuning the model using a public API. Previous work has established several successful attacks against specific fine-tuning API defences; however, prior attacks training and/or inference samples can be easily flagged as suspicious. In this work, we show that defences of fine-tuning APIs that seek to detect individual harmful training or inference samples ('pointwise' detection) are fundamentally limited in their ability to prevent fine-tuning attacks. We demonstrate a class of 'pointwise-undetectable' attacks that repurpose semantic or syntactic variations in benign model outputs to covertly transmit dangerous knowledge. Our attacks are composed solely of unsuspicious benign samples that can be collected from the model before fine-tuning, meaning training and inference samples are all individually benign and low-perplexity. We test our attacks against the OpenAI fine-tuning API, finding they succeed in eliciting answers to harmful multiple-choice questions, and that they evade an enhanced monitoring system we design that successfully detects other fine-tuning attacks. Our results showing fundamental limitations of defending against pointwise attacks suggest focusing research efforts on mitigations towards multi-point defences.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 5ca9bdaf-ebef-4049-b224-77baf889f1e1Builds on12
- Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!Xiangyu Qi, Yi Zeng, Tinghao Xie, Pin-Yu Chen et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,104 citations
- The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use with UnlearningNathaniel Li, Alexander Pan, Anjali Gopal, Summer Yue et al.ICML 2024 · 390 citations
- Poisoning Web-Scale Training Datasets is PracticalNicholas Carlini, Matthew Jagielski, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Daniel Paleka et al.S&P 2024 · 309 citations
- Mechanistically analyzing the effects of fine-tuning on procedurally defined tasksSamyak Jain, Robert Kirk, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Robert P. Dick et al.ICLR 2024 · 108 citations
- Representation Noising: A Defence Mechanism Against Harmful FinetuningDomenic Rosati, Jan Wehner, Kai Williams, Lukasz Bartoszcze et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 107 citations
Related papers
- No, of Course I Can! Deeper Fine-Tuning Attacks That Bypass Token-Level Safety MechanismsJoshua Kazdan, Abhay Puri, Rylan Schaeffer, Lisa Yu et al.ICLR 2026
- Covert Malicious Finetuning: Challenges in Safeguarding LLM AdaptationDanny Halawi, Alexander Wei, Eric Wallace, Tony Tong Wang et al.ICML 2024 · 77 citations
- Jailbreak-Tuning: Models Efficiently Learn Jailbreak SusceptibilityBrendan Murphy, Dillon Bowen, Shahrad Mohammadzadeh, Tom Tseng et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- In-Training Defenses Against Emergent Misalignment in Language ModelsDavid Kaczér, Magnus Jørgenvåg, Clemens Vetter, Esha Afzal et al.ICML 2026 · 13 citations
- Panacea: Mitigating Harmful Fine-tuning for Large Language Models via Post-fine-tuning PerturbationYibo Wang, Tiansheng Huang, Li Shen, Huanjin Yao et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 22 citations
