DataRx: Missingness-Aware Sampling for Safer Large Language Model Task-Specific Fine-Tuning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Task-specific fine-tuning can improve the performance of large language models (LLMs) on downstream tasks. However, our study reveals that task-specific fine-tuning can also weaken the safety guardrails of aligned LLMs. A widely adopted strategy for preserving safety during fine-tuning is to incorporate safety data. Although previous studies have shown that randomly mixing safety data can alleviate safety degradation, the underlying principle determining why some safety examples are more effective than others still remains unclear. In this paper, we propose DataRx, a missingness-aware sampling method for selecting safety-critical examples. DataRx is based on the hypothesis that a safety sample is more effective when the selected examples provide safety signals that fill the missing parts of LLMs' safety capabilities. DataRx's key insight is leveraging high-dimensional hidden representations rather than discrete tokens to quantify the safety signal gap between the target model's native response and the safety reference response. The results show that, with only 1% additional safety samples from BeaverTails, DataRx reduces the average attack success rate of Llama3-8B-Instruct across seven downstream tasks from 59.23% under random sampling to 13.70%. In addition, DataRx can be combined with the existing safety data synthesis method to further enhance safety defenses during fine-tuning. We hope that DataRx will inspire more data-centric defense research.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 47 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2026.
Builds on
47 of 58 references.
References · 47
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
35 more
- 2020What Disease does this Patient Have? A Large-scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Examscited by 1,324
- 2025s1: Simple test-time scalingcited by 1,311
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,106
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,080
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
- 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Datasetcited by 828
- 2025LIMO: Less is More for Reasoningcited by 488
- 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 477
- 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 460
- 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deepcited by 450
- 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 377
- 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakerscited by 302
- 2023Magicoder: Empowering Code Generation with OSS-Instructcited by 251
- 2023RAIN: Your Language Models Can Align Themselves without Finetuningcited by 149
- 2025SafeChain: Safety of Language Models with Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Capabilitiescited by 133
- 2025Qwen3Guard Technical Reportcited by 125
- 2025Aegis2.0: A Diverse AI Safety Dataset and Risks Taxonomy for Alignment of LLM Guardrailscited by 122
- 2024Keeping LLMs Aligned After Fine-tuning: The Crucial Role of Prompt Templatescited by 94
- 2024Self-Distillation Bridges Distribution Gap in Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 90
- 2024Detoxifying Large Language Models via Knowledge Editingcited by 86
- 2024Long Is More for Alignment: A Simple but Tough-to-Beat Baseline for Instruction Fine-Tuningcited by 85
- 2024On the Role of Attention Heads in Large Language Model Safetycited by 70
- 2025STAR-1: Safer Alignment of Reasoning LLMs with 1K Datacited by 67
- 2024SEAL: Safety-enhanced Aligned LLM Fine-tuning via Bilevel Data Selectioncited by 64
- 2025Unlearning Isn't Deletion: Investigating Reversibility of Machine Unlearning in LLMscited by 41
- 2023Token-Level Adversarial Prompt Detection Based on Perplexity Measures and Contextual Informationcited by 32
- 2025SFT Doesn't Always Hurt General Capabilities: Revisiting Domain-Specific Fine-Tuning in LLMscited by 23
- 2025Why LLM Safety Guardrails Collapse After Fine-tuning: A Similarity Analysis Between Alignment and Fine-tuning Datasetscited by 18
- 2024Do as I do (Safely): Mitigating Task-Specific Fine-tuning Risks in Large Language Modelscited by 17
- 2025Multilingual Contextualization of Large Language Models for Document-Level Machine Translationcited by 11
- 2025Do We Really Need Curated Malicious Data for Safety Alignment in Multi-modal Large Language Models?cited by 9
- 2025UnsafeChain: Enhancing Reasoning Model Safety via Hard Casescited by 7
- 2026GR-SAP: Generative Replay for Safety Alignment Preservation during Fine-Tuningcited by 2
- 2026Hint Tuning: Less Data Makes Better Reasonerscited by 1
- 2026DataShield: Safety-degrading Data Filtering for LLM Benign Instruction Fine-Tuningcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.