# Task Format as a Factor in Adaptation: A Controlled Comparison of LoRA and Full Fine-Tuning for Prompt-Safety Classification

Preprint · John Alderete, Srirakshith Betageri, Jennifer Flynn, Alex Greenhalgh, Josh Rubin, Yoshita Varma Annam

- Archive id: arxiv:2610.33813
- Published: 2026-10-24
- arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.33813
- Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.33813
- PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.33813
- Provenance: arxiv

## Abstract

Fine-tuning a language model for classification involves many design decisions. Comparisons of low-rank adaptation (LoRA) with full fine-tuning are common but often confounded, and task format is rarely studied. We compare both regimes on prompt-safety classification with a matched 400M encoder-decoder pair (Ettin) across three task formats, with up to 15 seeds per cell and pre-specified analyses. At the pre-specified learning rates, full fine-tuning leads LoRA by 2-3 pp in every architecture and format trained on the label alone. On the encoder, the gap closes once both rates are chosen by the same search. Training LoRA to write a reason after its verdict adds 4.0 pp and closes the gap, but a content-free sentence of equal length does not. Trained models score above a prompted 8B in domain but fall behind it on two of three out-of-distribution corpora, trailing by 8-23 pp on adversarial jailbreaks and flagging 27-66% of benign but harmful-looking prompts as unsafe, against the 8B's 2-3%. Together, the results suggest that the adaptation regime matters less than how each model is trained, its learning rate, and training target, and that in-domain accuracy alone is an incomplete guide to robustness.

_Abstract reproduced under CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)._

---
Space Kitty Archive · https://space-kitty.com · API: https://space-kitty.com/api/v1 · MCP: https://space-kitty.com/mcp · Premium: $0.20/request via x402 (Base Sepolia (testnet)). Metadata: arXiv (CC0), OpenAlex (CC0), Europe PMC (CC BY/CC0 works), ClinicalTrials.gov.