Minerval
Sourceunknowntext stored

On Evaluating the Durability of Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMs

Qi, Xiangyu, Wei, Boyi, Carlini, Nicholas, Huang, Yangsibo, Xie, Tinghao, He, Luxi, Jagielski, Matthew, Nasr, Milad, Mittal, Prateek, Henderson, PeterarXiv.orgPublished Dec 10, 2024Original︎ ↗Archived copy

Claims4
ExaminationsNone
Text46 sections
VersionsOne known
CopiesNone recorded
CorrectionsNone recorded
Facts checked Nov 11, 2026
ReachNo copies recorded
StructureIn 4 claims' maps0 sources downstream across 4 claims
EvidenceNot yet read
ReviewsNot reviewed

Examinations

None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.

Text56 passages · 1 marked

No examination yetMarked passage
Skip to main content0 passages
Search1 passage
Log in0 passages
Search arXiv0 passages
Press Enter to search · Advanced search0 passages
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security2 passages
Title: On Evaluating the Durability of Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMs9 passages · 1 marked

Abstract: Stakeholders -- from model developers to policymakers -- seek to minimize the dual-use risks of large language models (LLMs). An open challenge to this goal is whether technical safeguards can impede the misuse of LLMs, even when models are customizable via fine-tuning or when model weights are fully open. In response, several recent studies have proposed methods to produce durable LLM safeguards for open-weight LLMs that can withstand adversarial modifications of the model's weights via fine-tuning. This holds the promise of raising adversaries' costs even under strong threat models where adversaries can directly fine-tune model weights. However, in this paper, we urge for more careful characterization of the limits of these approaches. Through several case studies, we demonstrate that even evaluating these defenses is exceedingly difficult and can easily mislead audiences into thinking that safeguards are more durable than they really are. We draw lessons from the evaluation pitfalls that we identify and suggest future research carefully cabin claims to more constrained, well-defined, and rigorously examined threat models, which can provide more useful and candid assessments to stakeholders.

Focus to learn more1 passage
Submission history3 passages
View PDF1 passage
TeX Source1 passage
Additional Features0 passages
Audio Summary7 passages
References & Citations0 passages
SciX0 passages
Google Scholar0 passages
Semantic Scholar1 passage
BibTeX formatted citation3 passages
Bookmark0 passages
Bibliographic Tools0 passages
Bibliographic and Citation Tools0 passages
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle1 passage
Connected Papers Toggle1 passage
Litmaps Toggle3 passages
Code, Data, Media0 passages
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article2 passages
Links to Code Toggle1 passage
DagsHub Toggle1 passage
GotitPub Toggle1 passage
Huggingface Toggle1 passage
ScienceCast Toggle1 passage
Demos0 passages
Demos0 passages
Replicate Toggle1 passage
Spaces Toggle1 passage
Spaces Toggle1 passage
Related Papers0 passages
Recommenders and Search Tools0 passages
Link to Influence Flower1 passage
Core recommender toggle1 passage
Author0 passages
Venue0 passages
Institution0 passages
Topic0 passages
About arXivLabs7 passages
Major funding support from3 passages

Not found in the text 1

As quoted

In this work we focus on evaluating methods aimed to "durably safeguard open-weight LLMs." ... we find that this is not what occurs for either TAR or RepNoise

Lineage across 4 claims

Draws on · none recorded
This source
On Evaluating the Durability of Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMs
in 4 claims' maps
Drawn on by · none recorded

Record

Kind
unknown
Authors
Qi, Xiangyu, Wei, Boyi, Carlini, Nicholas, Huang, Yangsibo, Xie, Tinghao, He, Luxi, Jagielski, Matthew, Nasr, Milad, Mittal, Prateek, Henderson, Peter
Publisher
arXiv.org
Published
Dec 10, 2024
DOI
None
Link
https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07097
Archived copy
https://web.archive.org/web/20261029182709/https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07097
Stored text
4,762 characters, retrieved Nov 11, 2026 · 46 sections, 56 passages
Claims extracted
Versions
One known
Copies
None recorded
Corrections
None recorded
Facts checked
Nov 11, 2026

History 3

  1. Nov 11, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 102 parts by its own structure
  2. Nov 11, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
  3. Nov 11, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored
On Evaluating the Durability of Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMs · Minerval