Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Learning to Stay Safe: Adaptive Regularization Against Safety Degradation during Fine-Tuning

Jyotin Goel, Souvik Maji, Pratik Mazumder · Feb 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Instruction-following language models are trained to be helpful and safe, yet their safety behavior can deteriorate under benign fine-tuning and worsen under adversarial updates. Existing defenses often offer limited protection or force a trade-off between safety and utility. We introduce a training framework that adapts regularization in response to safety risk, enabling models to remain aligned throughout fine-tuning. To estimate safety risk at training time, we explore two distinct approaches: a judge-based Safety Critic that assigns high-level harm scores to training batches, and an activation-based risk predictor built with a lightweight classifier trained on intermediate model activations to estimate harmful intent. Each approach provides a risk signal that is used to constrain updates deemed higher risk to remain close to a safe reference policy, while lower-risk updates proceed with standard training. We empirically verify that harmful intent signals are predictable from pre-generation activations and that judge scores provide effective high-recall safety guidance. Across multiple model families and attack scenarios, adaptive regularization with either risk estimation approach consistently lowers attack success rate compared to standard fine-tuning, preserves downstream performance, and adds no inference-time cost. This work demonstrates a principled mechanism for maintaining safety without sacrificing utility.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Instruction-following language models are trained to be helpful and safe, yet their safety behavior can deteriorate under benign fine-tuning and worsen under adversarial updates."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Instruction-following language models are trained to be helpful and safe, yet their safety behavior can deteriorate under benign fine-tuning and worsen under adversarial updates."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Instruction-following language models are trained to be helpful and safe, yet their safety behavior can deteriorate under benign fine-tuning and worsen under adversarial updates."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Instruction-following language models are trained to be helpful and safe, yet their safety behavior can deteriorate under benign fine-tuning and worsen under adversarial updates."

Reported Metrics

partial

Recall, Success rate, Jailbreak success rate

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"We empirically verify that harmful intent signals are predictable from pre-generation activations and that judge scores provide effective high-recall safety guidance."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

recallsuccess ratejailbreak success rate

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Instruction-following language models are trained to be helpful and safe, yet their safety behavior can deteriorate under benign fine-tuning and worsen under adversarial updates.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Instruction-following language models are trained to be helpful and safe, yet their safety behavior can deteriorate under benign fine-tuning and worsen under adversarial updates.
  • Existing defenses often offer limited protection or force a trade-off between safety and utility.
  • We introduce a training framework that adapts regularization in response to safety risk, enabling models to remain aligned throughout fine-tuning.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Instruction-following language models are trained to be helpful and safe, yet their safety behavior can deteriorate under benign fine-tuning and worsen under adversarial updates.
  • Existing defenses often offer limited protection or force a trade-off between safety and utility.
  • We introduce a training framework that adapts regularization in response to safety risk, enabling models to remain aligned throughout fine-tuning.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Instruction-following language models are trained to be helpful and safe, yet their safety behavior can deteriorate under benign fine-tuning and worsen under adversarial updates.
  • We introduce a training framework that adapts regularization in response to safety risk, enabling models to remain aligned throughout fine-tuning.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: recall, success rate, jailbreak success rate

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.