Do as I do (Safely): Mitigating Task-Specific Fine-tuning Risks in Large Language Models
Francisco Eiras, Aleksandar Petrov, Philip Torr, M. Pawan Kumar, Adel Bibi
Abstract
Recent research shows that fine-tuning on benign instruction-following data can inadvertently undo the safety alignment process and increase a model's propensity to comply with harmful queries. While instruction-following fine-tuning is important, task-specific fine-tuning - where models are trained on datasets with clear ground truth answers (e.g., multiple choice questions) - can enhance model performance on specialized downstream tasks. Understanding and mitigating safety risks in the task-specific setting remains distinct from the instruction-following context due to structural differences in the data. Our work demonstrates how malicious actors can subtly manipulate the structure of almost any task-specific dataset to foster significantly more dangerous model behaviors, while maintaining an appearance of innocuity and reasonable downstream task performance. To address this issue, we propose a novel mitigation strategy that mixes in safety data which mimics the task format and prompting style of the user data, showing this is significantly more effective and efficient than existing baselines at re-establishing safety alignment while maintaining similar task performance.
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.
Cited by top-tier papers12
- Alignment Pretraining: AI Discourse Causes Self-Fulfilling (Mis)alignmentCameron Tice, Puria Radmard, Samuel Ratnam, Andy Kim et al.ICML 2026 · 22 citations
- Why LLM Safety Guardrails Collapse After Fine-tuning: A Similarity Analysis Between Alignment and Fine-tuning DatasetsLei Hsiung, Tianyu Pang, Yung-Chen Tang, Linyue Song et al.ACL 2026 · 22 citations
- Superficial Safety Alignment HypothesisJianwei Li, Jung-Eun KimICLR 2026 · 11 citations
- Antibody: Strengthening Defense Against Harmful Fine-Tuning for Large Language Models via Attenuating Harmful Gradient InfluenceQuoc Minh Nguyen, Trung Le, Jing Wu, Anh Tuan Bui et al.ICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- Safety Subspaces are Not Linearly Distinct: A Fine-Tuning Case StudyKaustubh Ponkshe, Shaan Shah, Raghav Singhal, Praneeth VepakommaICLR 2026 · 9 citations
Builds on13
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- WinoGrande: An Adversarial Winograd Schema Challenge at ScaleKeisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin ChoiAAAI 2020 · 3,037 citations
Related papers
- Keeping LLMs Aligned After Fine-tuning: The Crucial Role of Prompt TemplatesKaifeng Lyu, Haoyu Zhao, Xinran Gu, Dingli Yu et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 131 citations
- AsFT: Anchoring Safety During LLM Fine-Tuning Within Narrow Safety BasinShuo Yang, Qihui Zhang, Yuyang Liu, Yue Huang et al.AAAI 2026 · 19 citations
- Few Tokens, Big Leverage: Preserving Safety Alignment by Constraining Safety Tokens during Fine-tuningGuoli Wang, Haonan Shi, Tu Ouyang, An WangKDD 2026 · 5 citations
- SDD: Self-Degraded Defense against Malicious Fine-tuningZixuan Chen, Weikai Lu, Xin Lin, Ziqian ZengACL 2025
- Do We Really Need Curated Malicious Data for Safety Alignment in Multi-modal Large Language Models?Yanbo Wang, Jiyang Guan, Jian Liang, Ran HeCVPR 2025
