mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Towards Identification and Intervention of Safety-Critical Parameters in Large Language Models

arXiv 2604.08297 ↗First posted 9 Apr 2026cs.CRcited by 2

On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails

Abstract (arXiv)

Ensuring Large Language Model (LLM) safety is crucial, yet the lack of a clear understanding about safety mechanisms hinders the development of precise and reliable methodologies for safety intervention across diverse tasks. To better understand and control LLM safety, we propose the Expected Safety Impact (ESI) framework for quantifying how different parameters affect LLM safety. Based on ESI, we reveal distinct safety-critical patterns across different LLM architectures: In dense LLMs, many safety-critical parameters are located in value matrices (V) and MLPs in middle layers, whereas in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models, they shift to the late-layer MLPs. Leveraging ESI, we further introduce two targeted intervention paradigms for safety enhancement and preservation, i.e., Safety Enhancement Tuning (SET) and Safety Preserving Adaptation (SPA). SET can align unsafe LLMs by updating only a few safety-critical parameters, effectively enhancing safety while preserving original performance. SPA safeguards well-aligned LLMs during capability-oriented intervention (e.g., instruction tuning) by preventing disruption of safety-critical weights, allowing the LLM to acquire new abilities and maintain safety capabilities. Extensive evaluations on different LLMs demonstrate that SET can reduce the attack success rates of unaligned LLMs by over 50% with only a 100-iteration update on 1% of model weights. SPA can limit the safety degradation of aligned LLMs within 1% after a 1,000-iteration instruction fine-tuning on different tasks. Our code is available at: https://github.com/ZJU-LLM-Safety/SafeWeights-ACL.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 32 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2026.

Builds on

32 of 54 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025HarmMetric Eval: Benchmarking Metrics and Judges for LLM Harmfulness Assessment29 Sep
  2. 2025Fine-Tuning Lowers Safety and Disrupts Evaluation Consistency20 Jun
  3. 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep10 Jun
  4. 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakers6 Jun
  5. 2024Assessing the Brittleness of Safety Alignment via Pruning and Low-Rank Modifications7 Feb
  6. 2023LoRA Fine-tuning Efficiently Undoes Safety Training in Llama 2-Chat 70B31 Oct
  7. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!5 Oct

Other references · 25

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
  3. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  4. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  5. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  6. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  7. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  8. 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,330
  9. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
  10. 2019ZeRO: Memory Optimizations Toward Training Trillion Parameter Modelscited by 1,301
  11. 2023SparseGPT: Massive Language Models Can Be Accurately Pruned in One-Shotcited by 1,121
  12. 2018SNIP: Single-shot Network Pruning based on Connection Sensitivitycited by 812
13 more
  1. 2023A Simple and Effective Pruning Approach for Large Language Modelscited by 800
  2. 2024How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMscited by 573
  3. 2023GPTFUZZER: Red Teaming Large Language Models with Auto-Generated Jailbreak Promptscited by 560
  4. 2024KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimizationcited by 264
  5. 2024Safety Layers in Aligned Large Language Models: The Key to LLM Securitycited by 134
  6. 2024GradSafe: Detecting Jailbreak Prompts for LLMs via Safety-Critical Gradient Analysiscited by 96
  7. 2018Distributionally Adversarial Attackcited by 26
  8. 2025MAJIC: Markovian Adaptive Jailbreaking via Iterative Composition of Diverse Innovative Strategiescited by 14
  9. 2025DualBreach: Efficient Dual-Jailbreaking via Target-Driven Initialization and Multi-Target Optimizationcited by 12
  10. 2024Enhancing Large Language Model Performance with Gradient-Based Parameter Selectioncited by 9
  11. 2024RTop-K: Ultra-Fast Row-Wise Top-K Selection for Neural Network Acceleration on GPUscited by 8
  12. 2025RadiK: Scalable and Optimized GPU-Parallel Radix Top-K Selectioncited by 6
  13. 2026JANUS: A Lightweight Framework for Jailbreaking Text-to-Image Models via Distribution Optimizationcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Understanding and Preserving Safety in Fine-Tuned LLMs
  2. 2026From Parameter Dynamics to Risk Scoring : Quantifying Sample-Level Safety Degradation in LLM Fine-tuning
  3. 2025Secure LLM Fine-Tuning via Safety-Aware Probing
  4. 2025Picky LLMs and Unreliable RMs: An Empirical Study on Safety Alignment after Instruction Tuning
  5. 2024Navigating the Safety Landscape: Measuring Risks in Finetuning Large Language Models
  6. 2026When Safety Speaks a Language: A Mechanistic Analysis of Safety-Language Identity Entanglement in LLMs
  7. 2024On the Role of Attention Heads in Large Language Model Safety
  8. 2026Safety at One Shot: Patching Fine-Tuned LLMs with A Single Instance