src_fb50be84b835134c75
- Source-provided label
- Not reported
- Evidence class
- mentioned in report
- Confidence
- Not reported
- Observed
- Oct 07, 2026 04:00 UTC
- Retrieved
- Oct 08, 2026 03:43 UTC
arXiv:2610.07518v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety auditing of post-trained large language models typically relies on model behavior, requiring model execution and depending on the coverage of available evaluations. This work asks a different question: Do the target behaviors optimized during supervised fine-tuning (SFT) leave readable evidence directly in checkpoint updates? We find that ha
Harmful SFT Leaves a Continuous Trace in LLM Checkpoint Updates745772f9efe3ad2722ba8438badfd977cd1839c0a98cda38244edd1e032e950dNetwork indicators are visibly defanged. This page does not make them clickable or send them to another service.
No validated file hashes or network indicators are stored for this record.
This record contains metadata and attribution only. It does not host, download, unpack, render, or execute malware samples.
Sources represented on this page. Publication and observation dates describe the content; successful batch dates describe local collection. A recent batch does not certify complete coverage or current provider availability.
1 sources: 0 stale, 0 needing attention, 0 paused, 1 unverified.
Stale means older than twice the recorded collection interval, with a minimum of one hour; without an interval, the threshold is 24 hours. Cached content remains available while a feed is stale, paused, or unverified.