# Safety Drift After Fine-Tuning: Evidence from High-Stakes Domains

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24902 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.24902/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 27 Apr 2026.

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Reward Bias Substitution: Single-Axis Bias Mitigations Redirect Optimization Pressure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.27996/) (2026)
- [SafeTune: A Unified Faithful Library for Auditing and Repairing Safety Drift in Fine-Tuned LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.22153/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Foundation models are routinely fine-tuned for use in particular domains, yet safety assessments are typically conducted only on base models, implicitly assuming that safety properties persist through downstream adaptation. We test this assumption by analyzing the safety behavior of 100 models, including widely deployed fine-tunes in the medical and legal domains as well as controlled adaptations of open foundation models alongside their bases. Across general-purpose and domain-specific safety benchmarks, we find that benign fine-tuning induces large, heterogeneous, and often contradictory changes in measured safety: models frequently improve on some instruments while degrading on others, with substantial disagreement across evaluations. These results show that safety behavior is not stable under ordinary downstream adaptation, raising critical questions about governance and deployment practices centered on base-model evaluations. Without explicit re-evaluation of fine-tuned models in deployment-relevant contexts, such approaches fall short of adequately managing downstream risk, overlooking practical sources of harm -- failures that are especially consequential in high-stakes settings and challenge current accountability paradigms.