Self-Mined Hardness for Safety Fine-Tuning

Fuente: arXiv
Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gupta, Prakhar, Shah, Garv, Zhang, Donghua
Format: Preprint
Published: 2026
Subjects:
Online Access:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866917460795457536
author Gupta, Prakhar
Shah, Garv
Zhang, Donghua
author_facet Gupta, Prakhar
Shah, Garv
Zhang, Donghua
contents Safety fine-tuning of language models typically requires a curated adversarial dataset. We take a different approach: score each candidate prompt's difficulty by how often the target model's own rollouts are judged harmful, then fine-tune on the hardest prompts paired with the model's own non-jailbroken rollouts. On Llama-3-8B-Instruct and Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, this approach cuts the WildJailbreak attack success rate from 11.5% and 20.1% down to 1-3%, but pushes refusal on jailbreak-shaped benign prompts from 14-22% to 74-94%. Interleaving the same hard prompts 1:1 with adversarially-framed benign prompts (prompts that look like jailbreaks but have benign intent) cuts that refusal back down to 30-51% on 8B and 52-72% on 3B, at a cost of 2-6 percentage points of attack success rate. Within the mixed regime, training on the hardest half of the eligible pool rather than a random half cuts the remaining ASR by 35-50% (about 3 percentage points) on both models.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_03226
institution arXiv
publishDate 2026
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Self-Mined Hardness for Safety Fine-Tuning
Gupta, Prakhar
Shah, Garv
Zhang, Donghua
Machine Learning
Artificial Intelligence
Cryptography and Security
Safety fine-tuning of language models typically requires a curated adversarial dataset. We take a different approach: score each candidate prompt's difficulty by how often the target model's own rollouts are judged harmful, then fine-tune on the hardest prompts paired with the model's own non-jailbroken rollouts. On Llama-3-8B-Instruct and Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, this approach cuts the WildJailbreak attack success rate from 11.5% and 20.1% down to 1-3%, but pushes refusal on jailbreak-shaped benign prompts from 14-22% to 74-94%. Interleaving the same hard prompts 1:1 with adversarially-framed benign prompts (prompts that look like jailbreaks but have benign intent) cuts that refusal back down to 30-51% on 8B and 52-72% on 3B, at a cost of 2-6 percentage points of attack success rate. Within the mixed regime, training on the hardest half of the eligible pool rather than a random half cuts the remaining ASR by 35-50% (about 3 percentage points) on both models.
title Self-Mined Hardness for Safety Fine-Tuning
topic Machine Learning
Artificial Intelligence
Cryptography and Security
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.03226