mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Few-Shot Truly Benign DPO Attack for Jailbreaking LLMs

arXiv 2605.10998 ↗First posted 9 May 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Fine-tuning APIs make frontier LLMs easy to customize, but they can also weaken safety alignment during fine-tuning. While prior work shows that benign supervised fine-tuning (SFT) can reduce refusal behavior, deployed fine-tuning pipelines increasingly support preference-based objectives, whose safety risks remain less understood. We show that Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) introduces a stronger and harder-to-audit failure mode. We propose a truly benign DPO attack using only 10 harmless preference pairs, the minimum data scale accepted by OpenAI's fine-tuning service. Each pair contains a benign prompt, a normal helpful answer as the preferred response, and a refusal as the dispreferred response. Unlike prior benign fine-tuning attacks, our data exhibits no suspicious behavior: it is practically indistinguishable from the fine-tuning request of a legitimate user seeking to reduce over-refusal, making harmful intent almost impossible to infer from the request alone. Nevertheless, because DPO directly optimizes the model to prefer helpful answers over refusals, this seemingly benign objective broadly suppresses refusal behavior and transfers to harmful prompts outside the fine-tuning data. Across OpenAI models supporting DPO fine-tuning, our attack achieves attack success rates of 59.13% on GPT-4o, 70.20% on GPT-4.1, 54.80% on GPT-4.1-mini, and 81.73% on GPT-4.1-nano, at costs of only 1.7, 1.7, 0.3, and 0.1. Moreover, on open-weight models that do not impose minimum data requirements, we find that this effect can emerge from even a single benign preference pair.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 39 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 May 2026.

Builds on

39 of 47 references.

Closest ancestors · 12

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Invisible Safety Threat: Malicious Finetuning for LLM via Steganography9 Mar
  2. 2025Attack via Overfitting: 10-shot Benign Fine-tuning to Jailbreak LLMs3 Oct
  3. 2024Harmful Fine-tuning Attacks and Defenses for Large Language Models: A Survey26 Sep
  4. 2024Safety Layers in Aligned Large Language Models: The Key to LLM Security30 Aug
  5. 2024SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal20 Jun
  6. 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep10 Jun
  7. 2024OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models31 May
  8. 2023Removing RLHF Protections in GPT-4 via Fine-Tuning9 Nov
  9. 2023LoRA Fine-tuning Efficiently Undoes Safety Training in Llama 2-Chat 70B31 Oct
  10. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!5 Oct
  11. 2023Shadow Alignment: The Ease of Subverting Safely-Aligned Language Models4 Oct
  12. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul

Other references · 27

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  3. 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 3,024
  4. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  5. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
  6. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
  7. 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,420
  8. 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,228
  9. 2023Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automaticallycited by 672
  10. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 605
  11. 2024JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Modelscited by 536
  12. 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 529
15 more
  1. 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 505
  2. 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 496
  3. 2024A StrongREJECT for Empty Jailbreakscited by 385
  4. 2023Low-Resource Languages Jailbreak GPT-4cited by 309
  5. 2023Poisoning Web-Scale Training Datasets is Practicalcited by 290
  6. 2023A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Generalized Nested Jailbreak Prompts can Fool Large Language Models Easilycited by 259
  7. 2024What is in Your Safe Data? Identifying Benign Data that Breaks Safetycited by 118
  8. 2024Covert Malicious Finetuning: Challenges in Safeguarding LLM Adaptationcited by 80
  9. 2024White-box Multimodal Jailbreaks Against Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 59
  10. 2023Bypassing the Safety Training of Open-Source LLMs with Priming Attackscited by 50
  11. 2025Benign Samples Matter! Fine-tuning On Outlier Benign Samples Severely Breaks Safetycited by 22
  12. 2024The effect of fine-tuning on language model toxicitycited by 16
  13. 2024Exploiting the Index Gradients for Optimization-Based Jailbreaking on Large Language Modelscited by 15
  14. 2025AISafetyLab: A Comprehensive Framework for AI Safety Evaluation and Improvementcited by 12
  15. 2024LawInstruct: A Resource for Studying Language Model Adaptation to the Legal Domaincited by 10

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Efficient Safety Retrofitting Against Jailbreaking for LLMs
  2. 2025Improving LLM Safety Alignment with Dual-Objective Optimization
  3. 2024Don't Say No: Jailbreaking LLM by Suppressing Refusal
  4. 2025An Embarrassingly Simple Defense Against LLM Abliteration Attacks
  5. 2024Self and Cross-Model Distillation for LLMs: Effective Methods for Refusal Pattern Alignment
  6. 2025Fun-tuning: Characterizing the Vulnerability of Proprietary LLMs to Optimization-based Prompt Injection Attacks via the Fine-Tuning Interface
  7. 2024Refuse Whenever You Feel Unsafe: Improving Safety in LLMs via Decoupled Refusal Training
  8. 2026LLM-VA: Resolving the Jailbreak-Overrefusal Trade-off via Vector Alignment