# Sequential Data Poisoning in LLM Post-Training

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.04929 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.04929/

## 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 36 of its 48 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/safety-alignment-and-jailbreak-attacks/)
- LLM safety and security / [Backdoor and data poisoning attacks](https://mlsanity.com/safety/backdoor-and-data-poisoning-attacks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 36)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11416/) (2022)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03693/) (2023)
- [Targeted Backdoor Attacks on Deep Learning Systems Using Data Poisoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.05526/) (2017)
- [Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05566/) (2024)
- [Backdoor Learning: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.08745/) (2020)
- [Certified Defenses for Data Poisoning Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03691/) (2017)
- [Poisoning Web-Scale Training Datasets is Practical](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.10149/) (2023)
- [Poisoning Language Models During Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.00944/) (2023)
- [BadNL: Backdoor Attacks against NLP Models with Semantic-preserving Improvements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.01043/) (2020)
- [Latent Adversarial Training Improves Robustness to Persistent Harmful Behaviors in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.15549/) (2024)
- [Backdooring Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models with Virtual Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16888/) (2023)
- [Stronger Data Poisoning Attacks Break Data Sanitization Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.00741/) (2018)
- [Universal Jailbreak Backdoors from Poisoned Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.14455/) (2023)
- [On the Exploitability of Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.17194/) (2023)
- [Instructions as Backdoors: Backdoor Vulnerabilities of Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14710/) (2023)
- [Spinning Language Models: Risks of Propaganda-As-A-Service and Countermeasures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.05224/) (2021)
- [Persistent Pre-Training Poisoning of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13722/) (2024)
- [Algorithmic Collective Action in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04262/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM post-training proceeds through multiple stages, e.g., supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) or direct preference optimization (DPO), where each stage draws data from different, potentially untrusted sources. Existing literature assumes data poisoning attacks may occur at each training stage, but neglects the possibility of multiple attackers. To study the trustworthiness of the entire post-training pipeline, we propose the threat model of sequential data poisoning, where multiple adversaries separately poison the SFT and preference datasets. Under this threat model, we identify the single-attacker illusion: each adversary, evaluated in isolation, appears to pose a negligible threat. Yet when adversaries collaborate across stages, the true vulnerability is revealed. In the SFT → DPO pipeline, their contributions are additive: splitting a fixed poison budget across stages outperforms concentrating it in either stage alone. In the SFT → PPO pipeline, their contributions are complementary: neither SFT nor reward model poisoning succeeds individually, yet their combination does. These findings show that security analyses of individual post-training stages systematically underestimate compound vulnerabilities that emerge only from their interaction. Code is available at https://github.com/jcksanderson/sequential-poisoning.