TuCo: Measuring the Contribution of Fine-Tuning to Individual Responses of LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Past work has studied the effects of fine-tuning on large language models' (LLMs) overall performance on certain tasks. However, a quantitative and systematic method for analyzing its effect on individual outputs is still lacking. Here, we propose a new method for measuring the contribution that fine-tuning makes to individual LLM responses, assuming access to the original pre-trained model. Our method tracks the model's intermediate hidden states, providing a more fine-grained insight into the effects of fine-tuning than a simple comparison of final outputs from pre-trained and fine-tuned models. We introduce and theoretically analyze an exact decomposition of any fine-tuned LLM into a pre-training component and a fine-tuning component. Empirically, we find that model behavior and performance can be steered by up- or down-scaling the fine-tuning component during the forward pass. Motivated by this finding and our theoretical analysis, we define the Tuning Contribution (TuCo) as the ratio of the magnitudes of the fine-tuning component to the pre-training component. We observe that three prominent adversarial attacks on LLMs circumvent safety measures in a way that reduces TuCo, and that TuCo is consistently lower on prompts where these attacks succeed compared to those where they do not. This suggests that attenuating the effect of fine-tuning on model outputs plays a role in the success of such attacks. In summary, TuCo enables the quantitative study of how fine-tuning influences model behavior and safety, and vice versa.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 57 of its 77 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2025.
Builds on
57 of 77 references.
References · 57
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2016Layer Normalizationcited by 5,669
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
38 more
- 2018Neural Ordinary Differential Equationscited by 3,779
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
- 2019Root Mean Square Layer Normalizationcited by 1,480
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,302
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
- 2022Editing Models with Task Arithmeticcited by 1,120
- 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,085
- 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,055
- 2022In-context Learning and Induction Headscited by 964
- 2024Gemma: Open Models Based on Gemini Research and Technologycited by 916
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 876
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 836
- 2021Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot modelscited by 797
- 2023AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Modelscited by 785
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 767
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learnedcited by 729
- 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 659
- 2023Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Modelscited by 651
- 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 580
- 2023Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexitycited by 431
- 2023Larger language models do in-context learning differentlycited by 394
- 2023Studying Large Language Model Generalization with Influence Functionscited by 326
- 2023Certifying LLM Safety against Adversarial Promptingcited by 266
- 2023LLM Self Defense: By Self Examination, LLMs Know They Are Being Trickedcited by 244
- 2023Mitigating the Alignment Tax of RLHFcited by 183
- 2024Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms: A Case Study on Entity Trackingcited by 149
- 2023Understanding Catastrophic Forgetting in Language Models via Implicit Inferencecited by 144
- 2022Training Data Influence Analysis and Estimation: A Surveycited by 135
- 2021Scaling Up Influence Functionscited by 132
- 2024Intention Analysis Makes LLMs A Good Jailbreak Defendercited by 74
- 2024Defending Large Language Models against Jailbreak Attacks via Semantic Smoothingcited by 74
50 most cited of 57 All 57 (JSON)
Built on by
Not cited yet.