Daily Papers

Machine unlearning aims to remove specified training data to satisfy privacy regulations such as GDPR. However, existing evaluations assume identical precision at unlearning and deployment, overlooking that production LLMs are deployed at low-bit precision. We show that INT4 quantization systematically restores forgotten content even when models pass compliance audits at bfloat16 (BF16), we term this the quantization recovery attack (QRA). We conduct the first systematic study of unlearning robustness under adapter-space INT4 quantization in the NF4+LoRA regime, evaluating seven methods on LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct across TOFU, MUSE-News, and WikiBio-WPU. INT8 is benign; INT4 induces recovery of up to 22x, worsening with dataset difficulty. We identify the FA-RA-Q-INT4 trilemma: no method simultaneously achieves strong forgetting, high utility, and quantization robustness. A dense Pareto sweep reveals a sharp phase transition once robustness is achieved, retaining accuracy collapses regardless of further tuning. To address this, we propose DURABLEUN-SAF (Sharpness-Aware Forgetting), a quantization-aware objective using Straight-Through Estimator gradients through INT4 rounding. DURABLEUN-SAF is the only method to achieve a stable empirical (0.047, {BF16, INT8, INT4})- durability certificate: Q-INT4= 0.043 +- 0.002, cert rate= 3/3, versus SalUn's cert rate= 1/3 at its own published hyperparameters. We call for Q-INT4 to be adopted as a standard evaluation metric alongside FA and RA.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have underscored their vulnerability to safety alignment jailbreaks, particularly when subjected to downstream fine-tuning. However, existing mitigation strategies primarily focus on reactively addressing jailbreak incidents after safety guardrails have been compromised, removing harmful gradients during fine-tuning, or continuously reinforcing safety alignment throughout fine-tuning. As such, they tend to overlook a critical upstream factor: the role of the original safety-alignment data. This paper therefore investigates the degradation of safety guardrails through the lens of representation similarity between upstream alignment datasets and downstream fine-tuning tasks. Our experiments demonstrate that high similarity between these datasets significantly weakens safety guardrails, making models more susceptible to jailbreaks. Conversely, low similarity between these two types of datasets yields substantially more robust models and thus reduces harmfulness score by up to 10.33%. By highlighting the importance of upstream dataset design in the building of durable safety guardrails and reducing real-world vulnerability to jailbreak attacks, these findings offer actionable insights for fine-tuning service providers.

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.

Stateful personal agents increasingly maintain long-term user profiles, episodic memories, and reusable skills. This persistence turns conversational sycophancy into a state-writing failure: accepted user-centric claims can be committed as lasting preferences, background facts, or workflows and later reused after the original conversation is gone. We call this persistent sycophancy and introduce the Personal Agent Sycophancy Benchmark (PASB), a 1,600-task benchmark that traces whether a conversational claim is accepted, written into durable agent state, and reused in a later neutral query. Unlike prior benchmarks that provide pre-written memories, PASB evaluates real agents (Hermes-Agent and OpenClaw) that decide what to store. It isolates the write process by combining four scenario framings with four temporal delivery patterns and separating a five-turn persist stage from a cleared three-turn query stage, ensuring downstream effects arise only from durable state. Across twelve models, the commit boundary is the key inflection point: downstream failure increases from 45.0% in session-only episodes to 71.9% after commitment, a consistent increase of 27.0 percentage points. Committed claims exhibit three write-time patterns: status promotion, attribution removal, and scope broadening. These patterns become stronger under memory-like or procedural framing, repeated reinforcement, and even across domain boundaries. These results show that agent sycophancy is fundamentally a state-writing governance problem. Once user content is committed to durable memory, safety must govern what agents write, not only what they say. PASB identifies the write-time controls needed to gate risky commits while preserving the source, role, and scope of stored content beyond response-level mitigations.