# Beyond Creed: A Non-Identity Safety Condition A Strong Empirical Alternative to Identity Framing in Low-Data LoRA Fine-Tuning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.14723 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.14723/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04249/) (2024)
- [Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03693/) (2023)
- [LoRA Fine-tuning Efficiently Undoes Safety Training in Llama 2-Chat 70B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.20624/) (2023)
- [NLSR: Neuron-Level Safety Realignment of Large Language Models Against Harmful Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.12497/) (2024)
- [Representation Bending for Large Language Model Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01550/) (2025)
- [Fine-Tuning Lowers Safety and Disrupts Evaluation Consistency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.17209/) (2025)
- [Beware of Your Po! Measuring and Mitigating AI Safety Risks in Role-Play Fine-Tuning of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20968/) (2025)
- [AsFT: Anchoring Safety During LLM Fine-Tuning Within Narrow Safety Basin](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08473/) (2025)
- [SDD: Self-Degraded Defense against Malicious Fine-tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21182/) (2025)
- [Unforgotten Safety: Preserving Safety Alignment of Large Language Models with Continual Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.10150/) (2025)
- [When Style Breaks Safety: Defending LLMs Against Superficial Style Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07452/) (2025)
- [Interpretable Safety Alignment via SAE-Constructed Low-Rank Subspace Adaptation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.23260/) (2025)
- [Constitution or Collapse? Exploring Constitutional AI with Llama 3-8B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.04918/) (2025)
- [AlignGuard-LoRA: Alignment-Preserving Fine-Tuning via Fisher-Guided Decomposition and Riemannian-Geodesic Collision Regularization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.02079/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [How Sensitive Are Safety Benchmarks to Judge Configuration Choices?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.24074/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

How safety supervision is written may matter more than the explicit identity content it contains. We study low-data LoRA safety fine-tuning with four supervision formats built from the same core safety rules: constitutional rules (A), creed-style identity framing (B), a B-matched creed condition with a worldview/confession identity-maintenance tail (C), and a matched non-identity condition (D). Across three instruction-tuned model families (Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen2.5 7B, and Gemma 3 4B), we evaluate HarmBench using a reconciled dual-judge pipeline combining Bedrock-hosted DeepSeek v3.2 and Sonnet 4.6, with disagreement and boundary cases manually resolved. The non-identity condition D is the strongest group on all three model families on the full 320-behavior HarmBench set, reaching 74.4% refusal on Llama, 76.9% on Gemma, and 74.1% on Qwen. By comparison, creed-style framing (B) improves over plain constitutional rules (A) on Llama and Gemma, but remains substantially below D, yielding an overall descriptive ordering of D > B > C ≥ A > baseline. This provides a bounded empirical challenge to a strong version of the identity-framing hypothesis: explicit creed-style identity language is not necessary for the strongest gains observed here. Capability evaluations on MMLU and ARC-Challenge show no meaningful trade-off across conditions.