Mark, Don't Erase: Token Inoculation for Dual-Use Knowledge in LLMs
On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails
Abstract (arXiv)
Safety interventions on dual-use knowledge typically choose between destroying hazardous content (e.g., unlearning, filtering) and suppressing it at the output layer (e.g., refusal training); both pay a tax in adjacent-domain competence or over-refusal. We argue that the right operation is conditioning, not reduction: we show that hazardous knowledge can be retained in the model and behaviorally gated by a privileged control token. Our method, Token Inoculation, introduces a binding-and-branching approach. First, during continued pre-training, we mark hazardous content by inserting a special token alongside dual-use documents, so the model binds the marker to the underlying semantics of the hazardous domain. Second, during supervised fine-tuning, we teach the model to answer hazardous queries correctly when the special token is present and to refuse them when it is absent, thereby enabling selective refusal without removing dual-use knowledge. On hazardous domain (e.g., WMDP-Bio), Token Inoculation reduces accuracy from 79% to 18% while retaining 93% of the base-model's benign-domain performance (e.g., MMLU), achieving the best safety-utility trade-off against unlearning and refusal-tuning baselines across 1B-14B model scales. We further show that refusal selectivity is controllable through the quality of the conditioning signal and that domain-specific semantic binding during pre-training is critical for the conditional behavior to generalize beyond memorized triggers. Our results suggest that safety alignment is better cast as a conditioning problem than a forgetting one: behavioral control is more precise when sensitive knowledge is retained under controlled access than when it is destroyed.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 25 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.
Builds on
25 of 30 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction17 Jun
- 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearning5 Mar
Other references · 23
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
- 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,793
- 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 877
- 2023Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversationscited by 825
- 2024Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearningcited by 484
- 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 477
- 2022Knowledge Unlearning for Mitigating Privacy Risks in Language Modelscited by 424
11 more
- 2023Pretraining Language Models with Human Preferencescited by 245
- 2024Simplicity Prevails: Rethinking Negative Preference Optimization for LLM Unlearningcited by 160
- 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RLcited by 111
- 2025Deep Ignorance: Filtering Pretraining Data Builds Tamper-Resistant Safeguards into Open-Weight LLMscited by 37
- 2025Safety Pretraining: Toward the Next Generation of Safe AIcited by 35
- 2025Real-Time Detection of Hallucinated Entities in Long-Form Generationcited by 33
- 2025Inoculation Prompting: Eliciting traits from LLMs during training can suppress them at test-timecited by 32
- 2025Inoculation Prompting: Instructing LLMs to misbehave at train-time improves test-time alignmentcited by 32
- 2025Believe It or Not: How Deeply do LLMs Believe Implanted Facts?cited by 19
- 2025When Bad Data Leads to Good Modelscited by 11
- 2026Shaping capabilities with token-level data filteringcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Decoupling Token Roles in Autoregressive Pretrainingcited by 0
- 2026Decoupling Token Roles in Autoregressive Pretraining27 Sep 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026First Token Matters: Understanding Safety Collapse in Large Reasoning Models
- 2026Think Before You Code: Dual Reasoning for the NLSafety-Utility Trade-Off in LLM Code Generation
- 2026Addressing Over-Refusal in LLMs with Competing Rewards
- 2026Few Tokens, Big Leverage: Preserving Safety Alignment by Constraining Safety Tokens during Fine-tuning
- 2026Into the Gray Zone: Domain Contexts Can Blur LLM Safety Boundaries
- 2025Think Before Refusal : Triggering Safety Reflection in LLMs to Mitigate False Refusal Behavior
- 2025Efficient Switchable Safety Control in LLMs via Magic-Token-Guided Co-Training
- 2025Safety is Not Only About Refusal: Reasoning-Enhanced Fine-tuning for Interpretable LLM Safety