mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Detecting Adversarial Fine-tuning with Auditing Agents

arXiv 2510.16255 ↗First posted 17 Oct 2025cs.CR cs.AIcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Model (LLM) providers expose fine-tuning APIs that let end users fine-tune their frontier LLMs. Unfortunately, it has been shown that an adversary with fine-tuning access to an LLM can bypass safeguards. Particularly concerning, such attacks may avoid detection with datasets that are only implicitly harmful. Our work studies robust detection mechanisms for adversarial use of fine-tuning APIs. We introduce the concept of a fine-tuning auditing agent and show it can detect harmful fine-tuning prior to model deployment. We provide our auditing agent with access to the fine-tuning dataset, as well as the fine-tuned and pre-fine-tuned models, and request the agent assigns a risk score for the fine-tuning job. We evaluate our detection approach on a diverse set of eight strong fine-tuning attacks from the literature, along with five benign fine-tuned models, totaling over 1400 independent audits. These attacks are undetectable with basic content moderation on the dataset, highlighting the challenge of the task. With the best set of affordances, our auditing agent achieves a 56.2% detection rate of adversarial fine-tuning at a 1% false positive rate. Most promising, the auditor is able to detect covert cipher attacks that evade safety evaluations and content moderation of the dataset. While benign fine-tuning with unintentional subtle safety degradation remains a challenge, we establish a baseline configuration for further work in this area. We release our auditing agent at https://github.com/safety-research/finetuning-auditor.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 18 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Oct 2025.

Builds on

18 of 28 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training10 Jan

Other references · 17

  1. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,154
  2. 2022A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real Worldcited by 356
  3. 2023Shadow Alignment: The Ease of Subverting Safely-Aligned Language Modelscited by 297
  4. 2025Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMscited by 172
  5. 2023HelpSteer: Multi-attribute Helpfulness Dataset for SteerLMcited by 142
  6. 2025Subliminal Learning: Language models transmit behavioral traits via hidden signals in datacited by 95
  7. 2024Harmful Fine-tuning Attacks and Defenses for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 90
  8. 2025Persona Features Control Emergent Misalignmentcited by 86
  9. 2025Auditing language models for hidden objectivescited by 83
  10. 2024Covert Malicious Finetuning: Challenges in Safeguarding LLM Adaptationcited by 80
  11. 2025Steering Out-of-Distribution Generalization with Concept Ablation Fine-Tuningcited by 39
  12. 2024Safety-Aware Fine-Tuning of Large Language Modelscited by 34
5 more
  1. 2024Mitigating Fine-tuning based Jailbreak Attack with Backdoor Enhanced Safety Alignmentcited by 31
  2. 2025Benign Samples Matter! Fine-tuning On Outlier Benign Samples Severely Breaks Safetycited by 22
  3. 2024A Fine-tuning Dataset and Benchmark for Large Language Models for Protein Understandingcited by 19
  4. 2025Towards Safeguarding LLM Fine-tuning APIs against Cipher Attackscited by 11
  5. 2025Fundamental Limitations in Pointwise Defences of LLM Finetuning APIscited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Open-Weight LLM Fine-Tuning Defenses are Susceptible to Simple Attacks
  2. 2025Fine-Tuning Lowers Safety and Disrupts Evaluation Consistency
  3. 2025Be Careful When Fine-tuning On Open-Source LLMs: Your Fine-tuning Data Could Be Secretly Stolen!
  4. 2025Rethinking Safety in LLM Fine-tuning: An Optimization Perspective
  5. 2025Watch your steps: Dormant Adversarial Behaviors that Activate upon LLM Finetuning
  6. 2026Security in the Fine-Tuning Lifecycle of Large Language Models: Threats, Defenses,Evaluation, and Future Directions
  7. 2025Fun-tuning: Characterizing the Vulnerability of Proprietary LLMs to Optimization-based Prompt Injection Attacks via the Fine-Tuning Interface
  8. 2025Accidental Vulnerability: Factors in Fine-Tuning that Shift Model Safeguards