mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Inherited Circuits, Learned Semantics: How Fine-Tuning Creates Evasion Vulnerabilities Invisible to Standard Evaluation

arXiv 2606.27091 ↗First posted 25 Jun 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

LLMs fine-tuned for security classification are usually evaluated on held-out examples from the same distribution as their training data. We show that this can miss vulnerabilities introduced by fine-tuning itself: models can learn token-level indicator semantics that preserve canonical accuracy while failing under behavior-preserving transformations such as PowerShell alias substitution, command reconstruction, string construction, execution indirection, and case mutation. We study Foundation-Sec-8B-Instruct and its base model, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, on matched PowerShell classification cohorts. Causal interventions localize the classification circuit to a late-attention route inherited from Llama rather than created by fine-tuning. Fine-tuning concentrates and semantically specializes this inherited structure, improving baseline behavior while creating transformation-sensitive attack surfaces. A three-tier evasion benchmark finds Foundation-Sec misses on iwr substitution, Invoke-Expression reconstruction, and case-mutated Invoke-Expression/IEX variants that Llama does not share. We also derive a pre-deployment monitoring method: a linear probe at the classification boundary and an indicator-token sign test identify command families where canonical indicators change role after fine-tuning. These signals prioritize red-team variant generation using only canonical inputs, showing that security fine-tuning can improve task accuracy while expanding the evasion surface. These results caution against treating small task-specific fine-tunes as straightforwardly safer security classifiers: specialization can convert inherited model structure into brittle indicator rules that preserve held-out accuracy while expanding the evasion surface. Robust AI-enabled security will require specifying the full transformation space of the task and monitoring semantic drift through fine-tuning.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2026.

Builds on

4 of 14 references.

References · 4

  1. 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
  2. 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 724
  3. 2025Towards Understanding Fine-Tuning Mechanisms of LLMs via Circuit Analysiscited by 20
  4. 2024Detecting and Understanding Vulnerabilities in Language Models via Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 13

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Do Fine-Tuned LLMs Understand Vulnerabilities? An Investigation into the Semantic Trap
  2. 2026Security in the Fine-Tuning Lifecycle of Large Language Models: Threats, Defenses,Evaluation, and Future Directions
  3. 2026Understanding and Preserving Safety in Fine-Tuned LLMs
  4. 2025A Mixture of Linear Corrections Generates Secure Code
  5. 2025Towards Safeguarding LLM Fine-tuning APIs against Cipher Attacks
  6. 2025Fine-Tuning Lowers Safety and Disrupts Evaluation Consistency
  7. 2024Fine-Tuning, Quantization, and LLMs: Navigating Unintended Outcomes
  8. 2025VulInstruct: Teaching LLMs Root-Cause Reasoning for Vulnerability Detection via Security Specifications