Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

CTRAP: Embedding Collapse Trap to Safeguard Large Language Models from Harmful Fine-Tuning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes CTRAP, an alignment-stage defense that embeds a collapse trap so harmful fine-tuning drives the model to output only a fixed token, while benign fine-tuning leaves it intact.

desk verdict Novel conditional-collapse defense with strong in-distribution results, but the attack evaluation is too narrow to support the 'various attack settings' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16559 v1 pith:TUGC3AGI submitted 2025-05-22 cs.CR cs.CL

Biao Yi , Tiansheng Huang , Baolei Zhang , Tong Li , Lihai Nie , Zheli Liu , Li Shen This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.CL
keywords harmfulfine-tuningsafetyalignmentmodelcollapseunlearningLLMdefensealignment-stagefine-tuning-as-a-servicetrap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that selective unlearning cannot stop harmful fine-tuning because LLMs' general adaptability lets them re-learn or repurpose abilities that unlearning tries to remove. As an alternative, it proposes embedding a collapse trap during safety alignment: a parameter-space configuration that stays dormant for benign fine-tuning but drives the model toward always predicting a fixed token (e.g., 'error') when fine-tuning updates pursue harmful objectives. The trap is realized by minimizing the alignment loss together with a collapse loss evaluated at a simulated single gradient step on a defender-held harmful dataset. Experiments on Gemma2-9B, Llama2-7B, and Qwen2-7B report that this keeps harmful scores near zero across full and mixed attack settings, while benign task accuracy stays close to that of undefended supervised fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The Collapse Trap objective in Eq. (2): standard alignment loss plus a weighted collapse loss evaluated at a simulated harmful parameter update. The collapse loss trains the model to predict a fixed token with high probability regardless of context, and the simulated harmful step acts as a proxy for an attacker's fine-tuning dynamics. The term's role is to plant instability so that real harmful updates move the model into a collapsing regime, while the alignment term preserves normal behavior when no harmful update occurs.

What would settle it

Fine-tune a CTRAP-aligned model on harmful examples drawn from a different distribution than the defender's harmful dataset, or with a different optimizer and learning-rate schedule, and observe whether the harmful score rises while the collapse loss stays flat; if so, the trap only works for the simulated attack direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CTRAP's claim is that a model can be pre-configured during alignment so that any sustained fine-tuning update in a harmful direction triggers progressive degradation of its core language modeling ability, eventually making it output only fixed meaningless tokens, whereas updates in benign directions leave it fully functional. The mechanism is the objective in Eq. (2), which balances standard alignment with a second term that evaluates the collapse loss at the hypothetical parameters after a simulated harmful step. Minimizing this second term shapes the parameter space so that a harmful step lands in a region of high collapse loss, while the alignment term keeps the unperturbed model well-behaved. The paper presents this as a paradigm shift from selective unlearning to conditional 'unlearning everything', and its experiments support the claim by showing that harmful scores stay low while benign fine-tuning accuracy is preserved.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a single defender-chosen gradient step on a harmful dataset accurately represents every real harmful fine-tuning trajectory; if an attacker uses different data, a different optimizer, or multi-step dynamics, the trap may not activate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Harmful fine-tuning attacks that follow the simulated harmful direction will progressively cripple the model, making it useless for malicious tasks regardless of how much harmful data is used.
  • The defense preserves benign utility: models fine-tuned on benign classification and reasoning tasks retain accuracy close to supervised fine-tuning.
  • Mixing small ratios of harmful data into benign datasets triggers the collapse more gradually but still effectively, so poison-ratio attacks are also mitigated.
  • Unlearning-based defenses such as NPO and representation noising fail at scale because LLMs re-learn harmful patterns, motivating 'unlearn everything' instead of selective removal.
  • The one-time alignment overhead is amortized over many fine-tuning requests, unlike fine-tuning-stage defenses that add cost per request.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: attack a CTRAP-aligned model with harmful data drawn from a different distribution than the defender's simulated harmful dataset, or with a different optimizer and learning-rate schedule, and observe whether the harmful score rises while the collapse loss stays flat; if so, the trap only works for the exact simulated attack direction.
  • The mechanism suggests a general 'conditional capability destruction' design: any defender-chosen direction, not just harm, could be trapped, for example to disable a model when unauthorized data use is detected.
  • Multi-step attackers could potentially bypass the trap by taking many small steps or by first fine-tuning on benign data to drift away from the simulated harmful direction before switching to harmful data; the paper only evaluates single-step simulated dynamics.
  • The choice of the fixed token and of the general dialogue dataset used for collapse loss may affect the quality of the collapse; testing across different tokens and dialogue distributions would show whether the recipe is robust.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CTRAP, an alignment-stage defense against harmful fine-tuning of LLMs. Rather than selectively unlearning harmful knowledge, CTRAP embeds a 'collapse trap' during alignment so that fine-tuning updates in a direction characteristic of harmful adaptation drive the model into a degenerate state that repeatedly emits a fixed token, while benign fine-tuning leaves the model functional. The core objective, Eq. (2), combines a standard alignment loss with a collapse loss evaluated at a simulated harmful parameter update, θ′ = θ − α∇θℓ(θ; D_harmful). Experiments on Gemma2-9B, Llama2-7B, and Qwen2-7B under 'full harmful' and 'mix harmful' settings report substantially lower harmful scores than the compared baselines while maintaining comparable benign fine-tuning accuracy. The paper also includes an overhead analysis, case studies, hyperparameter sensitivity analyses, and an anonymous code repository.

Significance. The conceptual proposal—conditional model collapse as a defense against harmful fine-tuning—is a genuine departure from selective unlearning and addresses a real limitation of prior defenses. If the mechanism generalizes beyond the specific evaluation setup, it could be a valuable tool for fine-tuning-as-a-service providers. The empirical results in Tables 1, 2, and 7–10 are consistent and large in magnitude, and the paper provides a detailed experimental setup and public code, which are strengths. However, the significance is currently tempered by the narrow evaluation: all attack data are drawn from the same distribution as the defender's harmful dataset, the attack uses the same LoRA rank, optimizer, and learning rate as the defender's simulated update, and no error bars or multiple seeds are reported. The cross-model summary in Table 3 also appears to contain inconsistent baseline entries. These issues mean that the paper's broad claims currently outrun the demonstrated scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (2)] The evaluation is in-distribution and matches the training dynamics used to plant the trap. Section 4.1 states that harmful attack data are 'with the same distribution as, but different instances from, those used in the alignment stage,' and the attack uses the same LoRA rank, optimizer, learning rate, and batch size as the defender's simulated harmful step. Because Eq. (2) optimizes the trap against a single simulated update θ′ = θ − α∇θℓ(θ; D_harmful), success is guaranteed only when the attacker's update direction and step geometry align with that simulation. Table 6 shows that HS(IO) rises from 2.2 at α = 0.1 to 12.2 at α = 0.01 and 10.5 at α = 1, demonstrating that the defense is sensitive to the simulated step size. The paper provides no evidence of transfer to different harmful content distributions, different optimizers, different LoRA ranks, multi-step dynamics, or step schedules. The abstract's claim that CTRAP 'effectively counters harmful fine-tuning risks across various LLMs and attack settings' therefore overstates the demonstrated scope; the tested 'attack settings' vary only sample count and poison ratio within the defender's known harmful distribution. The authors should either add out-of-distribution and mismatched-dynamics attack experiments or substantially temper the generalization claims.
  2. [Table 3 vs. Appendix C] The cross-model summary in Table 3 appears inconsistent with the detailed appendix tables. For Qwen2-7B full harmful, Table 3 lists Repnoise as 16.5/12.4 and Booster as 26.8/19.3, but Table 7 lists Repnoise as 26.8/19.3 and Booster as 16.5/12.4. For Gemma2-9B full harmful, Table 3 lists Booster as 37.2/29.6, while Table 1 gives Booster as 39.0/32.4 and Repnoise as 37.2/29.6. These look like swapped entries. Since Table 3 is the main evidence for the claim that CTRAP generalizes across models, the authors must correct these numbers and re-verify the averages and the statement that CTRAP outperforms the best baseline by 13.5% in HS(IO) and 10.9% in HS(O).
  3. [§4.1, Tables 1–10] No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results are reported for any quantitative claim. All harmful scores are computed with a single moderation model from BeaverTails, and the defense's performance is shown to be sensitive to hyperparameters in Tables 5 and 6. Given the stochasticity of LoRA fine-tuning and the dependence on a single classifier, the reported point estimates are insufficient to establish the claimed state-of-the-art margins, especially on the smaller differences in the mix-harmful setting. The authors should report variance over at least a few seeds for the main comparisons, or otherwise justify why the results are deterministic in this setup.
  4. [Eq. (2), §3.2] The implementation of Eq. (2) is underspecified. The second term evaluates the collapse loss at θ′ = θ − α∇θℓ(θ; D_harmful), which depends on θ through the gradient. The paper does not state whether the optimization uses full second-order gradients through the inner update, a stop-gradient on the inner update, or a first-order approximation. This is load-bearing for reproducibility because the method's effectiveness depends on how the trap is planted. The authors should specify the exact computation graph used in the implementation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] The NPO row in Table 2 is identical to the Vaccine row in the mix-harmful setting on Gemma2-9B, which appears to be a copy-paste error. Please verify and correct.
  2. [Appendix B] The Booster entry is labeled 'used in the fine-tuning stage' but the text then says it is used at the alignment stage; Section 4.1 also classifies Booster as an alignment-stage method. This inconsistency should be fixed.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The fixed token e is not defined. The case studies show the model repeating 'error', but the token choice and its initialization in the vocabulary should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Appendix E] The limitations section lists compute overhead and multimodal scope but does not mention the central proxy assumption that a single defender-chosen gradient step on a specific harmful dataset represents the update direction of real attacks. This should be acknowledged as a limitation.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'various LLMs and attack settings' should be qualified to reflect that the tested attacks use the same harmful distribution and the same training recipe as the defender's simulation.
  6. [Table 3] The table formatting is cramped and lacks clear column separators, making it difficult to parse the Full/Mix pairs. A cleaner layout would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trap is trained by design to collapse under harmful updates, and the paper's evaluations test this design against held-out instances and independent benign tasks, so the central claim is not reduced to its inputs.

full rationale

The core mechanism in Eq. 2 explicitly optimizes for low collapse loss at the simulated harmful update theta' = theta - alpha * grad_theta l(theta; D_harmful), so observing collapse under harmful fine-tuning on data from the same family is a verification of the training objective rather than an independent prediction. This is by design, not circularity: the paper's distinctive claim is conditionality, and that claim is tested against benign fine-tuning tasks (SST2, AGNEWS, GSM8K) whose distributions differ from the alignment helpful set, with benign accuracy close to SFT. The harmful evaluation uses held-out instances from the same BeaverTails-derived distribution, which is a legitimate within-distribution generalization test; it limits the breadth of the 'various attack settings' claim, but it does not make the result equivalent to the input by construction because the exact attack instances, multi-step dynamics, and measured harmful scores are not the optimized quantity itself. Self-citations to Huang et al. for dataset splits, baselines, and evaluation protocols are conventional and are not load-bearing for the trap's mechanism. Appendix E omits the single-step proxy assumption as a stated limitation, which is a missing caveat about out-of-distribution generalization, not a circular step. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and baselines, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism rests on the representative-harmful-dataset assumption, the single-step approximation of harmful fine-tuning, and the LoRA setting. The free parameters alpha and lambda are hand-tuned and sensitive; without them the method does not work as shown.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (inner step size) = 0.1
    Controls the simulated harmful update in Eq. 2. Tuned in Table 6, with best performance at 0.1 and worse performance for 0.01 and 1.0.
  • lambda (trap weight) = 0.1
    Weights the collapse trap term in Eq. 2. Tuned in Table 5, with best performance at 0.1 and degradation at both smaller and larger values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The defender has access to a harmful dataset representative of the attacker's harmful fine-tuning data.
    Assumed in Section 2.1 and used in Eq. 2. The evaluation in Section 4.1 draws attack data from the same distribution as this dataset.
  • domain assumption A single gradient step of size alpha on the representative harmful dataset approximates the parameter-space direction of real harmful fine-tuning.
    Eq. 2 simulates one harmful step with theta' = theta - alpha * grad. The method's effectiveness depends on this step matching actual fine-tuning dynamics, as shown by the sensitivity to alpha in Table 6.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning with LoRA adapters is equivalent enough to full fine-tuning for the trap to activate.
    All experiments use LoRA rank 32. The paper does not test full fine-tuning, so the generalization to full fine-tuning is unverified.
  • ad hoc to paper Predicting a fixed token 'error' with high probability is a valid and sufficient form of model collapse.
    Equation 1 defines collapse as predicting token e regardless of context. The choice of token e is arbitrary and never justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CTRAP: Embedding Collapse Trap to Safeguard Large Language Models from Harmful Fine-Tuning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUGC3AGI

@misc{pith2026250516559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CTRAP: Embedding Collapse Trap to Safeguard Large Language Models from Harmful Fine-Tuning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUGC3AGI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16559}
}
read the original abstract

Fine-tuning-as-a-service, while commercially successful for Large Language Model (LLM) providers, exposes models to harmful fine-tuning attacks. As a widely explored defense paradigm against such attacks, unlearning attempts to remove malicious knowledge from LLMs, thereby essentially preventing them from being used to perform malicious tasks. However, we highlight a critical flaw: the powerful general adaptability of LLMs allows them to easily bypass selective unlearning by rapidly relearning or repurposing their capabilities for harmful tasks. To address this fundamental limitation, we propose a paradigm shift: instead of selective removal, we advocate for inducing model collapse--effectively forcing the model to "unlearn everything"--specifically in response to updates characteristic of malicious adaptation. This collapse directly neutralizes the very general capabilities that attackers exploit, tackling the core issue unaddressed by selective unlearning. We introduce the Collapse Trap (CTRAP) as a practical mechanism to implement this concept conditionally. Embedded during alignment, CTRAP pre-configures the model's reaction to subsequent fine-tuning dynamics. If updates during fine-tuning constitute a persistent attempt to reverse safety alignment, the pre-configured trap triggers a progressive degradation of the model's core language modeling abilities, ultimately rendering it inert and useless for the attacker. Crucially, this collapse mechanism remains dormant during benign fine-tuning, ensuring the model's utility and general capabilities are preserved for legitimate users. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that CTRAP effectively counters harmful fine-tuning risks across various LLMs and attack settings, while maintaining high performance in benign scenarios. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CTRAP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16559 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The core idea of CTRAP: It serves as a solution during the alignment stage, embedding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model metrics after harmful data fine-tuning over multiple steps. The harmful score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fine-tuning dynamics after CTRAP implantation. (Left) Under pure harmful fine-tuning, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overhead analysis of CTRAP. CTRAP introduces additional overhead during the alignment phase compared to standard SFT, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Emergent Misalignment Recruits a Pre-existing Persona Subspace

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning on narrow bad data recruits a low-rank persona subspace already present in a frozen instruction-tuned model; holding that subspace out of activations prevents broad misalignment, and injecting it into the ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper

    Claims Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper’s contributions and scope? Answer: [Yes] Justification: They are accurate. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper. • The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claim...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper

    Limitations Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We postpone the discussion of limitations to Appendix E. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper. • The...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results

    Theory assumptions and proofs Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof? Answer: [NA] 22 Justification: The paper does not include theoretical results. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results. • All the theorems, formulas, and p...

    work page

  4. [4]

    J., Shen, Y ., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y ., Wang, S., Wang, L., and Chen, W

    6, 9 Hu, E. J., Shen, Y ., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y ., Wang, S., Wang, L., and Chen, W. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. 6 Huang, T., Bhattacharya, G., Joshi, P., Kimball, J., and Liu, L. Antidote: Post-fine-tuning safety alignment for large language models against harmful fine-tuning. arXi...

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Open problems in technical ai governance

    9 Reuel, A., Bucknall, B., Casper, S., Fist, T., Soder, L., Aarne, O., Hammond, L., Ibrahim, L., Chan, A., Wills, P., et al. Open problems in technical ai governance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14981,

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Defending against reverse preference attacks is difficult

    9 Rosati, D., Edkins, G., Raj, H., Atanasov, D., Majumdar, S., Rajendran, J., Rudzicz, F., and Sajjad, H. Defending against reverse preference attacks is difficult. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12914, 2024a. 9 Rosati, D., Edkins, G., Raj, H., Atanasov, D., Majumdar, S., Rajendran, J., Rudzicz, F., and Sajjad, H. Defending against reverse preference attacks i...

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    G., Hardin, C., Bhupatiraju, S., Hussenot, L., Mesnard, T., Shahriari, B., Ram´e, A., et al

    1, 3, 9 Team, G., Riviere, M., Pathak, S., Sessa, P. G., Hardin, C., Bhupatiraju, S., Hussenot, L., Mesnard, T., Shahriari, B., Ram´e, A., et al. Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118, 2024. 6 Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozi`ere, B., Goyal, N., Ham...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    full harmful

    9 Yang, A., Yang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Zhou, C., Li, C., Li, C., Liu, D., Huang, F., et al. Qwen2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671, 2024. 6 Yang, X., Wang, X., Zhang, Q., Petzold, L., Wang, W. Y ., Zhao, X., and Lin, D. Shadow alignment: The ease of subverting safely-aligned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02949, 202...

    arXiv 2023

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics

    Code of ethics Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Our research conformed with the Code of Ethics in every respect. Guidelines: • ...

  2. [10]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed

    Broader impacts Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed? Answer: [Yes] Justification: It is available in Appendix D. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the ...

  3. [11]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks

    Safeguards Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)? Answer: [NA] Justification: No such risks. ...

  4. [12]

    A more detailed version is in Appendix A

    Experimental result reproducibility Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and da...

  5. [13]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code

    Open access to data and code Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material? 23 Answer: [Yes] Justification: We provide the code in a...

  6. [14]

    A more detailed version is in Appendix A

    Experimental setting/details Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We have a concise discussion ...

  7. [15]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experiment statistical significance Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Hyper-parameters analysis and repetitive experimen...

  8. [16]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experiments compute resources Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments? Answer: [Yes] Justification: It is available in Sect...

  9. [20]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets

    Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The license and ...

  10. [21]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets

    New assets Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets? Answer: [NA] Justification: No new assets introduced except code. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets. •...

  11. [22]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Crowdsourcing and research with human subjects Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)? A...

  12. [23]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals...

  13. [24]

    Answer: [NA] Justification: This research does not incorporate LLMs as any important, original, or non- standard components in its core methodology development

    Declaration of LLM usage 27 Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is an important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods in this research? Note that if the LLM is used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact t...

    2025

  14. [2023]

    Towards secure tuning: Miti- gating security risks arising from benign instruction fine-tuning

    9 Du, Y ., Zhao, S., Cao, J., Ma, M., Zhao, D., Fan, F., Liu, T., and Qin, B. Towards secure tuning: Miti- gating security risks arising from benign instruction fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04524,

    arXiv

  15. [2024]

    H., Kumar, M

    9 Eiras, F., Petrov, A., Torr, P. H., Kumar, M. P., and Bibi, A. Mimicking user data: On mitigating fine-tuning risks in closed large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10288, 2024. 9 10 Gao, H., Pang, T., Du, C., Hu, T., Deng, Z., and Lin, M. Meta-unlearning on diffus...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [2025]

    Safety- tuned llamas: Lessons from improving the safety of large language models that follow instructions

    9 Bianchi, F., Suzgun, M., Attanasio, G., R¨ottger, P., Jurafsky, D., Hashimoto, T., and Zou, J. Safety- tuned llamas: Lessons from improving the safety of large language models that follow instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07875, 2023. 9 Bourtoule, L., Chandrasekaran, V...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.