Diagnosing Generalization Failures in Fine-Tuned LLMs: A Cross-Architectural Study on Phishing Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The practice of fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) has achieved state-of-the-art performance on specialized tasks, yet diagnosing why these models become brittle and fail to generalize remains a critical open problem. To address this, we introduce and apply a multi-layered diagnostic framework to a cross-architectural study. We fine-tune Llama 3.1 8B, Gemma 2 9B, and Mistral models on a high-stakes phishing detection task and use SHAP analysis and mechanistic interpretability to uncover the root causes of their generalization failures. Our investigation reveals three critical findings: (1) Generalization is driven by a powerful synergy between architecture and data diversity. The Gemma 2 9B model achieves state-of-the-art performance (>91% F1), but only when trained on a stylistically diverse ``generalist'' dataset. (2) Generalization is highly architecture-dependent. We diagnose a specific failure mode in Llama 3.1 8B, which performs well on a narrow domain but cannot integrate diverse data, leading to a significant performance drop. (3) Some architectures are inherently more generalizable. The Mistral model proves to be a consistent and resilient performer across multiple training paradigms. By pinpointing the flawed heuristics responsible for these failures, our work provides a concrete methodology for diagnosing and understanding generalization failures, underscoring that reliable AI requires deep validation of the interplay between architecture, data, and training strategy.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jan 2026.
Builds on
16 of 26 references.
References · 16
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,418
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
- 2024LoRA Learns Less and Forgets Lesscited by 328
- 2024On LLMs-Driven Synthetic Data Generation, Curation, and Evaluation: A Surveycited by 244
- 2024Assessing the Brittleness of Safety Alignment via Pruning and Low-Rank Modificationscited by 231
- 2023An LLM can Fool Itself: A Prompt-Based Adversarial Attackcited by 116
- 2024Securing Large Language Models: Threats, Vulnerabilities and Responsible Practicescited by 37
- 2024CurricuLLM: Automatic Task Curricula Design for Learning Complex Robot Skills using Large Language Modelscited by 22
4 more
- 2024Scalable Data Ablation Approximations for Language Models through Modular Training and Mergingcited by 11
- 2024A Survey of Large Language Models in Cybersecuritycited by 8
- 2022Spam Detection Using BERTcited by 6
- 2025Efficient Domain-adaptive Continual Pretraining for the Process Industry in the German Languagecited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Phishing Detection in the Gen-AI Era: Quantized LLMs vs Classical Models
- 2025Evaluating Large Language Models for Phishing Detection, Self-Consistency, Faithfulness, and Explainability
- 2025Phishing Email Detection Using Large Language Models
- 2026An Empirical Evaluation of Prompt Injection Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models Across Multilingual and Obfuscated Attack Scenarios
- 2026Clouding the Mirror: Stealthy Prompt Injection Attacks Targeting LLM-based Phishing Detection
- 2025Benchmarking Large Language Models for Cryptanalysis and Side-Channel Vulnerabilities
- 2026User-Centric Phishing Detection: A RAG and LLM-Based Approach ↗
- 2024Next-Generation Phishing: How LLM Agents Empower Cyber Attackers