Tiansheng Huang
Publications
Surgery: Mitigating Harmful Fine-Tuning for Large Language Models via Attention Sink
Harmful fine-tuning can invalidate safety alignment of large language models, exposing significant safety risks. In this paper, we utilize the attention sink mechanism to mitigate harmful fine-tuning. Specifically, we first measure a statistic named \emph{sink divergence} for each attention head and observe that \emph{different attention heads exhibit two different signs of sink divergence}. To understand its safety implications, we conduct experiments and find that the number of attention heads of positive sink divergence increases along with the increase of the model's harmfulness when undergoing harmful fine-tuning. Based on this finding, we propose a separable sink divergence hypothesis -- \emph{attention heads associating with learning harmful patterns during fine-tuning are separable by their sign of sink divergence}. Based on the hypothesis, we propose a fine-tuning-stage defense, dubbed Surgery. Surgery utilizes a regularizer for sink divergence suppression, which steers attention heads toward the negative sink divergence group, thereby reducing the model's tendency to learn and amplify harmful patterns. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Surgery improves defense performance by 5.90\%, 11.25\%, and 9.55\% on the BeaverTails, HarmBench, and SorryBench benchmarks, respectively. Source code is available on https://github.com/Lslland/Surgery.
Surgery: Mitigating Harmful Fine-Tuning for Large Language Models via Attention Sink
Harmful fine-tuning can invalidate safety alignment of large language models, exposing significant safety risks. In this paper, we utilize the attention sink mechanism to mitigate harmful fine-tuning. Specifically, we first measure a statistic named \emph{sink divergence} for each attention head and observe that \emph{different attention heads exhibit two different signs of sink divergence}. To understand its safety implications, we conduct experiments and find that the number of attention heads of positive sink divergence increases along with the increase of the model's harmfulness when undergoing harmful fine-tuning. Based on this finding, we propose a separable sink divergence hypothesis -- \emph{attention heads associating with learning harmful patterns during fine-tuning are separable by their sign of sink divergence}. Based on the hypothesis, we propose a fine-tuning-stage defense, dubbed Surgery. Surgery utilizes a regularizer for sink divergence suppression, which steers attention heads toward the negative sink divergence group, thereby reducing the model's tendency to learn and amplify harmful patterns. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Surgery improves defense performance by 5.90\%, 11.25\%, and 9.55\% on the BeaverTails, HarmBench, and SorryBench benchmarks, respectively. Source code is available on https://github.com/Lslland/Surgery.
Mitigating Safety Tax via Distribution-Grounded Refinement in Large Reasoning Models
Safety alignment incurs safety tax that perturbs a large reasoning model's (LRM) general reasoning ability. Existing datasets used for safety alignment for an LRM are usually constructed by distilling safety reasoning traces and answers from an external LRM or human labeler. However, such reasoning traces and answers exhibit a distributional gap with the target LRM that needs alignment, and we conjecture such distributional gap is the culprit leading to significant degradation of reasoning ability of the target LRM. Driven by this hypothesis, we propose a safety alignment dataset construction method, dubbed DGR. DGR transforms and refines an existing out-of-distributional safety reasoning dataset to be aligned with the target's LLM inner distribution. Experimental results demonstrate that i) DGR effectively mitigates the safety tax while maintaining safety performance across all baselines, i.e., achieving \textbf{+30.2\%} on DirectRefusal and \textbf{+21.2\%} on R1-ACT improvement in average reasoning accuracy compared to Vanilla SFT; ii) the degree of reasoning degradation correlates with the extent of distribution shift, suggesting that bridging this gap is central to preserving capabilities. Furthermore, we find that safety alignment in LRMs may primarily function as a mechanism to activate latent knowledge, as a mere \textbf{10} samples are sufficient for activating effective refusal behaviors. These findings not only emphasize the importance of distributional consistency but also provide insights into the activation mechanism of safety in reasoning models.