mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Fundamental Limitations in Pointwise Defences of LLM Finetuning APIs

arXiv 2502.14828 ↗First posted 20 Feb 2025cs.LG cs.CRcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM developers have imposed technical interventions to prevent fine-tuning misuse attacks, attacks where 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. 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 construct 'pointwise-undetectable' attacks that repurpose entropy in benign model outputs (e.g. semantic or syntactic variations) 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. We encourage the community to develop defences that tackle the fundamental limitations we uncover in pointwise fine-tuning API defences.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 96 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Feb 2025.

Builds on

24 of 96 references.

References · 24

  1. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
  2. 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,793
  3. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,106
  4. 2017Targeted Backdoor Attacks on Deep Learning Systems Using Data Poisoningcited by 1,012
  5. 2023Instruction Tuning with GPT-4cited by 676
  6. 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 477
  7. 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 460
  8. 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deepcited by 450
  9. 2024Measuring short-form factuality in large language modelscited by 345
  10. 2024Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Modelscited by 292
  11. 2024OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 222
  12. 2023Removing RLHF Protections in GPT-4 via Fine-Tuningcited by 165
12 more
  1. 2024Tamper-Resistant Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMscited by 132
  2. 2024What is in Your Safe Data? Identifying Benign Data that Breaks Safetycited by 114
  3. 2024Vaccine: Perturbation-aware Alignment for Large Language Models against Harmful Fine-tuning Attackcited by 113
  4. 2023Mechanistically analyzing the effects of fine-tuning on procedurally defined taskscited by 110
  5. 2024Representation Noising: A Defence Mechanism Against Harmful Finetuningcited by 93
  6. 2024Hopping Too Late: Exploring the Limitations of Large Language Models on Multi-Hop Queriescited by 78
  7. 2024Immunization against harmful fine-tuning attackscited by 33
  8. 2024Mitigating Fine-tuning based Jailbreak Attack with Backdoor Enhanced Safety Alignmentcited by 31
  9. 2023Exploiting Novel GPT-4 APIscited by 27
  10. 2024Adaptive Deployment of Untrusted LLMs Reduces Distributed Threatscited by 27
  11. 2023Look Before You Leap: A Universal Emergent Decomposition of Retrieval Tasks in Language Modelscited by 17
  12. 2024FineTuneBench: How well do commercial fine-tuning APIs infuse knowledge into LLMs?cited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 4.

10 papers.