mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Refining Positive and Toxic Samples for Dual Safety Self-Alignment of LLMs with Minimal Human Interventions

arXiv 2502.08657 ↗First posted 8 Feb 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 3

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Recent AI agents, such as ChatGPT and LLaMA, primarily rely on instruction tuning and reinforcement learning to calibrate the output of large language models (LLMs) with human intentions, ensuring the outputs are harmless and helpful. Existing methods heavily depend on the manual annotation of high-quality positive samples, while contending with issues such as noisy labels and minimal distinctions between preferred and dispreferred response data. However, readily available toxic samples with clear safety distinctions are often filtered out, removing valuable negative references that could aid LLMs in safety alignment. In response, we propose PT-ALIGN, a novel safety self-alignment approach that minimizes human supervision by automatically refining positive and toxic samples and performing fine-grained dual instruction tuning. Positive samples are harmless responses, while toxic samples deliberately contain extremely harmful content, serving as a new supervisory signals. Specifically, we utilize LLM itself to iteratively generate and refine training instances by only exploring fewer than 50 human annotations. We then employ two losses, i.e., maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and fine-grained unlikelihood training (UT), to jointly learn to enhance the LLM's safety. The MLE loss encourages an LLM to maximize the generation of harmless content based on positive samples. Conversely, the fine-grained UT loss guides the LLM to minimize the output of harmful words based on negative samples at the token-level, thereby guiding the model to decouple safety from effectiveness, directing it toward safer fine-tuning objectives, and increasing the likelihood of generating helpful and reliable content. Experiments on 9 popular open-source LLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of our PT-ALIGN for safety alignment, while maintaining comparable levels of helpfulness and usefulness.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 49 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Feb 2025.

Builds on

49 of 70 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!5 Oct
  2. 2023AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models3 Oct
  3. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul
  4. 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Dataset10 Jul
  5. 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned23 Aug

Other references · 44

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  3. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  4. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  5. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  6. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  7. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  8. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
  9. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  10. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
  11. 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,747
  12. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
32 more
  1. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
  2. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
  3. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  4. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
  5. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
  6. 2023A Survey of Large Language Modelscited by 2,537
  7. 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
  8. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
  9. 2023WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructionscited by 1,116
  10. 2020What Makes for Good Views for Contrastive Learning?cited by 843
  11. 2022GLM-130B: An Open Bilingual Pre-trained Modelcited by 837
  12. 2023OpenAssistant Conversations -- Democratizing Large Language Model Alignmentcited by 712
  13. 2023An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuningcited by 622
  14. 2023RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedbackcited by 615
  15. 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 443
  16. 2023Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Trainingcited by 399
  17. 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 377
  18. 2023Principle-Driven Self-Alignment of Language Models from Scratch with Minimal Human Supervisioncited by 318
  19. 2023Poisoning Language Models During Instruction Tuningcited by 254
  20. 2023Mitigating the Alignment Tax of RLHFcited by 181
  21. 2024Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part II: Reward Modelingcited by 170
  22. 2023RAIN: Your Language Models Can Align Themselves without Finetuningcited by 149
  23. 2024Llama Guard 3 Vision: Safeguarding Human-AI Image Understanding Conversationscited by 118
  24. 2020Variational Bayesian Unlearningcited by 114
  25. 2023RL4F: Generating Natural Language Feedback with Reinforcement Learning for Repairing Model Outputscited by 104
  26. 2023The Wisdom of Hindsight Makes Language Models Better Instruction Followerscited by 59
  27. 2024Learning From Failure: Integrating Negative Examples when Fine-tuning Large Language Models as Agentscited by 49
  28. 2021Understanding Negative Samples in Instance Discriminative Self-supervised Representation Learningcited by 47
  29. 2024Self-Alignment of Large Language Models via Monopolylogue-based Social Scene Simulationcited by 46
  30. 2023Gaining Wisdom from Setbacks: Aligning Large Language Models via Mistake Analysiscited by 34
  31. 2024Spread Preference Annotation: Direct Preference Judgment for Efficient LLM Alignmentcited by 27
  32. 2023Hard Adversarial Example Mining for Improving Robust Fairnesscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Can Safety Emerge from Weak Supervision? A Systematic Analysis of Small Language Models
  2. 2026An Efficient and Modular Framework for Targeted Harm Mitigation in LLMS
  3. 2026Safety at One Shot: Patching Fine-Tuned LLMs with A Single Instance
  4. 2024Locking Down the Finetuned LLMs Safety
  5. 2025Picky LLMs and Unreliable RMs: An Empirical Study on Safety Alignment after Instruction Tuning
  6. 2026Few Tokens, Big Leverage: Preserving Safety Alignment by Constraining Safety Tokens during Fine-tuning
  7. 2025Alignment and Safety in Large Language Models: Safety Mechanisms, Training Paradigms, and Emerging Challenges
  8. 2026DNAlign: Dynamic Null-Space Safe Alignment for LLMs