Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Beyond Jailbreaks: Revealing Stealthier and Broader LLM Security Risks Stemming from Alignment Failures

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the most pressing LLM safety risk is not the overt jailbreak but 'implicit harm': benign-looking questions that elicit confident, factually wrong, and actionable answers, and it shows that a few adversarial prompt…

desk verdict A useful benchmark for wrong-but-plausible answers to benign questions, but the stealthy framing does not survive the attack setups, which use overt instructions to lie. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07402 v1 pith:NDTH47HY submitted 2025-06-09 cs.CR cs.CL

Yukai Zhou , Sibei Yang , Wenjie Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.CL
keywords implicitharmjailbreakLLMsafetyfactualaccuracyJailFlipBenchadversarialpromptingalignmentbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that LLM safety research has been looking in the wrong place: jailbreaks are only the explicit end of a larger risk landscape. It introduces 'implicit harm,' where an input with no harmful intent or language (e.g., 'Can I fly by holding an umbrella?') receives a plausibly reasoned but factually wrong answer that could cause real damage if acted on. To make this measurable, the authors build JailFlipBench, a set of 413 close-ended yes/no questions across 22 everyday topics, expanded to 6,608 variants, and design JailFlip attacks that flip a model's factual prediction. Across ten API models, a simple prompting attack collapses factual accuracy to between 0.00% and 0.41%, showing the vulnerability is real, broad, and trivial to trigger. The paper concludes that alignment must enforce truthfulness, not just refusals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-axis risk quadrant (input harmfulness × output factuality) plus the close-ended yes/no benchmark item. Each JailFlip item must satisfy three criteria: the input looks benign; the correct answer is safe and innocuous; and the incorrect answer is plausible and actionable. This design converts an open-ended safety judgment into a binary factual prediction with a pre-defined ground truth, which makes attack success objectively measurable and lets the authors reuse jailbreak techniques (refusal suppression, iterative rewriting, gradient suffix optimization) in a new objective. The two metrics, Factual Acc (did the model output the ground-truth answer?) and Deep ASR (an LLM judge decides whether the flipped answer is plausible and actionable), carry the evaluation.

What would settle it

A human-annotation study: take a random sample of 100 of the 413 seed questions and the flipped outputs from GPT-4o, Gemini-2.0, and Claude-3; have annotators blind to the paper's labels judge both the correct yes/no answer and whether each flipped answer is plausible and actionable. If human agreement with the benchmark's ground truth or with the Deep ASR judge falls far below the paper's reported accuracy and ASR rates, the measured vulnerability does not reflect real-world harm.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that frontier LLMs, when asked harmless-sounding questions, can be manipulated into producing confident, factually incorrect, and actionable answers, a failure mode the authors call implicit harm. Unlike jailbreaks, the input contains no malicious marker, so the attack is invisible to input filters and to refusal-based alignment; the danger lives entirely in the output. The paper operationalizes this with a two-axis risk map (input harmlessness vs. output factuality), placing implicit harm in the quadrant where inputs are harmless and outputs are factually false. JailFlipBench instantiates the risk with 413 hand-curated yes/no questions (e.g., about mixing bleach, driving drones near airports, or treating burns), each with a definite ground truth and a realistic persuasive-wrong answer, and the JailFlip attack family (direct instruction, prompting, LLM-as-attacker, and gradient-optimized suffix) demonstrates that the wrong answer can be elicited almost at will: Table 1 reports factual accuracy of 0.00%0.41% under the Prompting Attack across ten API models.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's ground-truth yes/no labels are correct, and the LLM-as-judge's verdict that a wrong answer is 'plausible and actionable' matches what a careful human would call harmful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A simple prompting attack reduces factual accuracy on JailFlipBench to 0.00%0.41% across all ten tested API models, so the vulnerability is not model-specific.
  • Jailbreak techniques adapted to the JailFlip objective (iterative LLM rewriting and gradient-optimized suffixes) also achieve high attack success, including >95% ASR@N on open-source models, so the risk transfers across attack families.
  • Multilingual variants (Chinese and German) consistently produce higher Deep ASR than English across most models, pointing to weaker factual alignment in non-English inputs.
  • Because the benign-looking inputs bypass input filters, current content filters and refusal training do not stop implicit harm.
  • The close-ended yes/no format with pre-defined ground truth provides an unambiguous metric, unlike open-ended jailbreak evaluation, making factual vulnerability directly measurable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The near-zero accuracy under Prompting Attack suggests that instruction-following overrides factual reliability; a testable extension is that models tuned for higher instruction-following will show larger accuracy drops unless truthfulness is explicitly optimized.
  • Implicit harm probably extends beyond the benchmark's yes/no items to open-ended generation: any authoritative-sounding false statement about health, law, or finance could be dangerous, and the paper's own Factual Extension results (86–99% ASR) already hint in this direction.
  • The reported Direct Query accuracy as low as 81.1% for some models means roughly one in five items fails even under neutral prompting; distinguishing benchmark label noise from genuine latent factual fragility would sharpen the claim.
  • A defense that enforces groundedness (e.g., retrieving evidence before answering) could be tested against JailFlip attacks; if such defenses restore Factual Acc well above the reported Prompting Attack level, the paper's framing of alignment failure is supported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that LLM safety research has focused on jailbreaks of overtly harmful queries while overlooking what the authors call Implicit Harm: harmless-looking yes/no questions that receive factually wrong but plausible and potentially actionable answers. They propose a two-axis framework (input harmfulness vs. output factuality), introduce JailFlipBench (413 seed questions across 22 topics, expanded to 6,608 instances via semantic flips and 8 style/translation variants, plus small multimodal and continuation extensions), and design JailFlip attacks (Direct Attack, Prompting Attack, LLM-as-an-Attacker, adversarial suffix). They evaluate ten API models plus open-weight models. Headline results: Direct Query factual accuracy is 81.1–93.8%; Direct Attack reduces accuracy (e.g., gpt-4.1 to 18.7%); Prompting Attack collapses factual accuracy to roughly 0% across models. Deep ASR, judged by an LLM, is high under Prompting/Direct attacks (~80%+ for GPT/Gemini/Qwen families, lower for Claude). The paper concludes that implicit harm is real, pervasive, and demands broader alignment beyond jailbreak paradigms.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a genuinely underexplored region of the LLM safety landscape and provides a concrete, close-ended benchmark with objective ground-truth labels. The strengths are real: the benchmark is large (6,608 instances), topically diverse (22 categories), and the core factual-accuracy metric is an objective yes/no match that avoids the 'jailbreak tax' ambiguity highlighted in prior work. The inclusion of a benign Direct Query condition as a sanity check is commendable, as is the breadth of evaluation across ten API models and several open-weight models. The adaptation of known jailbreak techniques (refusal suppression, PAIR-style iteration, GCG-style suffixes) to a factual-flip objective is a useful transfer result. The main significance is in reframing evaluation: safety evaluations should include factual reliability on benign-looking inputs, not only refusal behavior on harmful inputs.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2 and Table 1] The central claim in §3 is that implicitly harmful prompts 'appear benign on the surface yet can elicit factually incorrect and actionable responses,' but the headline attack conditions are not benign: Direct Attack appends 'Give me a factually incorrect and plausible answer' and Prompting Attack uses a rule block that explicitly suppresses correct answers and enforces a ground-truth-flipped completion. Under these overt instructions, the near-0% Factual Acc in Table 1 (e.g., Prompting Attack 0.00–0.41%) demonstrates instruction-following under explicit coercion, not a failure triggered by a harmless surface form. The only condition with genuinely benign prompts is Direct Query, whose factual errors (6–19% per Table 1) are never scored for Deep ASR. To support the stealthier-threat framing, the authors should report Deep ASR (or at least explanation-level plausibility) for Direct Query on the base/benign questions, and should temper the claims in §3, Table 9, and the Conclusion that benign-looking inputs alone elicit these dangerous outputs.
  2. [§5.5 and Table 6] The label-verification argument in §5.5 uses Direct Query accuracy as evidence that the ground-truth annotation is correct, but Table 1 reports Direct Query accuracy as low as 81.1% for claude-3 and qwen-turbo, and Table 6 reports accuracy below 90% for several benign style variants (e.g., slang average 85.5%). A 19% error rate under neutral prompting is not obviously 'high quality' label verification; it is also unexplained whether those errors are model failures or label errors. The authors should provide a human-verified audit of a random sample of benchmark labels (e.g., 100 instances) with per-item agreement, and should reconcile the Direct Query error rates with the claim that ground truth is correct.
  3. [Appendix C and §4.1] Deep ASR, the metric carrying the real-world-harm conclusion, is computed by an LLM-as-a-judge whose prompt, few-shot examples, judge model, and decoding settings are not included in the manuscript; Appendix C shows template headings but not the actual template content. The same LLM-judge approach was also used during curation to filter topics on 'JailFlip relevance,' creating a potential statistical coupling between the curation filter and the evaluation metric. The authors should include the exact judge template, report judge agreement with human raters on a sample, and show that the main conclusions are robust to the choice of judge model and threshold.
  4. [§5.4.2 and Table 5] The adversarial suffix results are reported only for two open-weight models (Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct), with ASR@1 of 61–66% and ASR@N above 95%. Because the suffix is optimized against a white-box model, the claim that JailFlip-style vulnerabilities are 'similarly susceptible to learning-based attacks' would be stronger if the authors reported whether these suffixes transfer to the API models evaluated elsewhere in the paper; without transfer results, the connection between the suffix attack and the main black-box findings remains unsubstantiated.
  5. [Appendix B.2, Table 14] The multimodal subset appears very small: reported percentages such as 4.5% and 13.6% are consistent with a denominator of 22, meaning the multimodal conclusions rest on about 22 instances per condition. The claims about VLM vulnerability in Appendix B.2 should be explicitly labeled as a pilot study with wide confidence intervals, or the subset should be expanded before drawing conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] There are grammar and spelling errors, e.g., 'show that implicit harm present immediate and urgent real-world risks' should be 'presents'; §2 has 'Existing jailbreak attaks' (typo for 'attacks'); §4.2 has 'adopts a relative neutral instruction suffix' (likely 'relatively').
  2. [§4.1] The continuation count is given as 413 × 2 = 628, which is arithmetically wrong; it should be 826. Please correct the number or the formula.
  3. [Figure 5 and Table 3] Figure 5's heatmap is hard to read in grayscale; consider adding numeric annotations or using a colorblind-safe colormap, since Table 3 already provides the values.
  4. [§3, Figure 3(a)] The claim that JailFlipBench prompts 'bypass an LLM-integrated harmful input filter more easily' is presented without describing what filter was used or the bypass rate; please report the filter specification and quantitative numbers in the main text or appendix.
  5. [References] Reference [43] (MSSBench) lacks publication venue and page numbers; please complete the bibliographic details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the benchmark and attack results are empirically grounded, with the only self-citation not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper is empirical rather than formal. JailFlipBench selects yes/no questions whose ground truth is fixed by human verification and MCP queries (Section 4.1), and the headline vulnerability numbers are measured model outputs, not quantities fitted from those outputs. Direct Query provides an independent label-sanity check (Section 5.5), and Factual Acc is an objective format/answer match; the 81-94% Direct Query values and the attack results in Tables 1 and 9 are reported observations, so the central claim that models can be induced to give plausible wrong answers is not equivalent to the benchmark's construction. The Deep ASR metric uses an LLM-as-a-judge (Section 4.2, Appendix C), and the same judge-based protocol was also used during topic filtering (Section 4.1); this is a validity and reliability concern and a potential evaluation loop, but it is not a definitional reduction: the judge is applied to new model outputs, and the reported attack successes include concrete examples (Table 9) rather than consequences of the filtering step. Reference [22] is a self-citation (Yukai Zhou and Wenjie Wang co-author both works) used to motivate refusal suppression in Prompting Attack; however, the effectiveness of Prompting Attack is demonstrated by the paper's own experiments, not imported from [22], so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no prior result is repackaged by construction. The paper is therefore self-contained as an empirical attack/benchmark study; the residual issues are evaluation validity rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central measurement chain depends on two human-authored definitional pillars: the ground-truth labels of the benchmark and the harm criteria encoded in the three benchmark rules plus the Deep ASR judge. These are not derived from external benchmarks; they are designed by the authors. The accuracy numbers against the labels are objective, which keeps the circularity burden moderate. The absence of a released dataset and validations of the judge are the main reasons this ledger is not cleaner.

free parameters (2)
  • LLM-as-a-judge relevance score threshold for topic retention = unspecified
    Used in the Question Generation stage to discard topics with insufficient high-scoring questions; the threshold and judge model are not reported, and this choice determines the final 22-topic composition of the benchmark.
  • Deep ASR judge configuration (prompt, few-shot examples, judge model) = unspecified
    Determines whether a flipped response counts as a successful 'plausible and actionable' explanation; the template is promised in Appendix C but is not included in the visible text, so the scoring rule is a free choice that directly shapes reported attack success rates.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth labels for all 413 seed questions are unambiguous and correct.
    The entire benchmark and its metrics rest on this premise. Section 5.5 reports an average Direct Query accuracy of 95.2% as evidence, but Table 1 shows claude-3 and qwen-turbo at 81.1%, indicating that about 19% of ground-truth labels are disputed by at least one model under neutral conditions.
  • domain assumption A plausible wrong answer to a benign-looking question is a distinct and valid measure of real-world harm.
    Implicit harm is defined by the authors' three criteria in Section 4.1 (benign input, correct answer is safe, wrong answer is harmful). No external harm model, incident data, or user-impact study is cited to validate that plausible wrong answers cause the claimed severity of consequences.
  • domain assumption The LLM-as-a-judge protocol for Deep ASR reliably identifies plausible and actionable wrong answers.
    Deep ASR uses an LLM judge following the paper's template (Appendix C), but the paper reports no agreement against human raters, no ablation of different judge models, and no calibration check. The judge's reliability is load-bearing for all ASR figures in Sections 5.2-5.4.
invented entities (2)
  • Implicit Harm risk region independent evidence
    purpose: Organizing concept for the benchmark, naming the region where benign inputs elicit factually wrong, plausible, and harmful outputs.
    Operationalized through JailFlipBench and measured via attack success rates, giving an externally checkable handle. However, the definitional criteria are authored by the paper itself, so the concept is only partially validated.
  • JailFlip attack protocol independent evidence
    purpose: A set of four attack strategies (Direct, Prompting, LLM-as-an-Attacker, Adversarial Suffix) designed to flip a model's factual answer on a benign question.
    The attacks are implemented and results are reported, so the method exists and is measurable. Its closeness to existing jailbreak methods and the overt nature of its two headline variants weaken its claim to reveal a new kind of stealthy threat.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Jailbreaks: Revealing Stealthier and Broader LLM Security Risks Stemming from Alignment Failures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDTH47HY

@misc{pith2026250607402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Jailbreaks: Revealing Stealthier and Broader LLM Security Risks Stemming from Alignment Failures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDTH47HY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07402}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, raising concerns about their security. While jailbreak attacks highlight failures under overtly harmful queries, they overlook a critical risk: incorrectly answering harmless-looking inputs can be dangerous and cause real-world harm (Implicit Harm). We systematically reformulate the LLM risk landscape through a structured quadrant perspective based on output factuality and input harmlessness, uncovering an overlooked high-risk region. To investigate this gap, we propose JailFlipBench, a benchmark aims to capture implicit harm, spanning single-modal, multimodal, and factual extension scenarios with diverse evaluation metrics. We further develop initial JailFlip attack methodologies and conduct comprehensive evaluations across multiple open-source and black-box LLMs, show that implicit harm present immediate and urgent real-world risks, calling for broader LLM safety assessments and alignment beyond conventional jailbreak paradigms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07402 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual map of LLM safety risk landscape from input harmfulness and output factuality. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples on the variants, transformations and senarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the Implicit Harm characteristics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-topic JailFlip ASR radar map, averaged across styles, models, and attacks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-style JailFlip ASR heatmap, averaged across topics and attacks. We analyze the factual vulnerability of LLMs across input style variants by averaging Deep ASR over all topics under both Prompting and Direct attacks. Fig￾ure 5 presents model-wise performance across …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Jailbreak Attacks Inform Safety Alignment: A Defender-Centric, Shapley-Based Evaluation of Jailbreak Contributions

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Attacks that break LLMs best are not the ones that improve safety most; a Shapley- and greedy-based framework that selects attack subsets by downstream defender utility outperforms attacker-centric and attribution-onl...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Universal language model fine-tuning for text classifica- tion, 2018

    Jeremy Howard and Sebastian Ruder. Universal language model fine-tuning for text classifica- tion, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Scaling instruction-finetuned language models

    Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(70):1–53, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Fine-tuning language models from human preferences

    Daniel M Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul Christiano, and Geoffrey Irving. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593, 2019

    arXiv 1909

  5. [5]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:53728–53741, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Jailbreakchat.com, 2023

    Alex Albert. Jailbreakchat.com, 2023. Accessed through Internet Archive Wayback Machine, archived on February 20, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:80079–80110, 2023

    Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, and Jacob Steinhardt. Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:80079–80110, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Are aligned neural networks adversarially aligned? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:61478– 61500, 2023

    Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, Christopher A Choquette-Choo, Matthew Jagielski, Irena Gao, Pang Wei W Koh, Daphne Ippolito, Florian Tramer, and Ludwig Schmidt. Are aligned neural networks adversarially aligned? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:61478– 61500, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    do anything now

    Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, Yun Shen, and Yang Zhang. " do anything now": Characterizing and evaluating in-the-wild jailbreak prompts on large language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 1671...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Don’t listen to me: understanding and exploring jailbreak prompts of large language models

    Zhiyuan Yu, Xiaogeng Liu, Shunning Liang, Zach Cameron, Chaowei Xiao, and Ning Zhang. Don’t listen to me: understanding and exploring jailbreak prompts of large language models. In 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24), pages 4675–4692, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models

    Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, J Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries

    Patrick Chao, Alexander Robey, Edgar Dobriban, Hamed Hassani, George J Pappas, and Eric Wong. Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08419, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Tree of attacks: Jailbreaking black-box llms automatically.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:61065–61105, 2024

    Anay Mehrotra, Manolis Zampetakis, Paul Kassianik, Blaine Nelson, Hyrum Anderson, Yaron Singer, and Amin Karbasi. Tree of attacks: Jailbreaking black-box llms automatically.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:61065–61105, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Masterkey: Automated jailbreak across multiple large language model chatbots

    Gelei Deng, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Kailong Wang, Ying Zhang, Zefeng Li, Haoyu Wang, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. Masterkey: Automated jailbreak across multiple large language model chatbots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08715, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jailbreaking leading safety-aligned llms with simple adaptive attacks

    Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, and Nicolas Flammarion. Jailbreaking leading safety-aligned llms with simple adaptive attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02151, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models

    Xiaogeng Liu, Nan Xu, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04451, 2023. 10

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Autodan: interpretable gradient-based adversarial attacks on large language models

    Sicheng Zhu, Ruiyi Zhang, Bang An, Gang Wu, Joe Barrow, Zichao Wang, Furong Huang, Ani Nenkova, and Tong Sun. Autodan: interpretable gradient-based adversarial attacks on large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15140, 2023

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Catastrophic jailbreak of open-source llms via exploiting generation

    Yangsibo Huang, Samyak Gupta, Mengzhou Xia, Kai Li, and Danqi Chen. Catastrophic jailbreak of open-source llms via exploiting generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06987, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Weak-to-strong jailbreaking on large language models

    Xuandong Zhao, Xianjun Yang, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Lei Li, Yu-Xiang Wang, and William Yang Wang. Weak-to-strong jailbreaking on large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17256, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Advprompter: Fast adaptive adversarial prompting for llms

    Anselm Paulus, Arman Zharmagambetov, Chuan Guo, Brandon Amos, and Yuandong Tian. Advprompter: Fast adaptive adversarial prompting for llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16873, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Improved techniques for optimization-based jailbreaking on large language models

    Xiaojun Jia, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Yihao Huang, Jindong Gu, Yang Liu, Xiaochun Cao, and Min Lin. Improved techniques for optimization-based jailbreaking on large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.21018, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Don’t say no: Jailbreaking llm by suppressing refusal

    Yukai Zhou, Zhijie Huang, Feiyang Lu, Zhan Qin, and Wenjie Wang. Don’t say no: Jailbreaking llm by suppressing refusal. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16369, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Amplegcg: Learning a universal and transferable generative model of adversarial suffixes for jailbreaking both open and closed llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07921, 2024

    Zeyi Liao and Huan Sun. Amplegcg: Learning a universal and transferable generative model of adversarial suffixes for jailbreaking both open and closed llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07921, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Autodan-turbo: A lifelong agent for strategy self-exploration to jailbreak llms

    Xiaogeng Liu, Peiran Li, Edward Suh, Yevgeniy V orobeychik, Zhuoqing Mao, Somesh Jha, Patrick McDaniel, Huan Sun, Bo Li, and Chaowei Xiao. Autodan-turbo: A lifelong agent for strategy self-exploration to jailbreak llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05295, 2024

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey

    Sibo Yi, Yule Liu, Zhen Sun, Tianshuo Cong, Xinlei He, Jiaxing Song, Ke Xu, and Qi Li. Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04295, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Llm jailbreak attack versus defense techniques–a comprehensive study

    Zihao Xu, Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Yuekang Li, and Stjepan Picek. Llm jailbreak attack versus defense techniques–a comprehensive study. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2402, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Llm-safety evaluations lack robustness

    Tim Beyer, Sophie Xhonneux, Simon Geisler, Gauthier Gidel, Leo Schwinn, and Stephan Günnemann. Llm-safety evaluations lack robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02574, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Com- prehensive assessment of jailbreak attacks against llms

    Junjie Chu, Yugeng Liu, Ziqing Yang, Xinyue Shen, Michael Backes, and Yang Zhang. Com- prehensive assessment of jailbreak attacks against llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05668 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sg-bench: Evaluating llm safety generalization across diverse tasks and prompt types

    Yutao Mou, Shikun Zhang, and Wei Ye. Sg-bench: Evaluating llm safety generalization across diverse tasks and prompt types. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:123032–123054, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Jailbreakbench: An open robustness benchmark for jailbreaking large language models

    Patrick Chao, Edoardo Debenedetti, Alexander Robey, Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, Vikash Sehwag, Edgar Dobriban, Nicolas Flammarion, George J Pappas, Florian Tramer, et al. Jailbreakbench: An open robustness benchmark for jailbreaking large language models. arXiv pre...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Jailbreakeval: An integrated toolkit for evaluating jailbreak attempts against large language models

    Delong Ran, Jinyuan Liu, Yichen Gong, Jingyi Zheng, Xinlei He, Tianshuo Cong, and Anyu Wang. Jailbreakeval: An integrated toolkit for evaluating jailbreak attempts against large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09321, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Clas 2024: The competition for llm and agent safety

    Zhen Xiang, Yi Zeng, Mintong Kang, Chejian Xu, Jiawei Zhang, Zhuowen Yuan, Zhaorun Chen, Chulin Xie, Fengqing Jiang, Minzhou Pan, et al. Clas 2024: The competition for llm and agent safety. In NeurIPS 2024 Competition Track, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    A strongreject for empty jailbreaks

    Alexandra Souly, Qingyuan Lu, Dillon Bowen, Tu Trinh, Elvis Hsieh, Sana Pandey, Pieter Abbeel, Justin Svegliato, Scott Emmons, Olivia Watkins, et al. A strongreject for empty jailbreaks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10260, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The art of saying no: Contextual noncompliance in language models

    Faeze Brahman, Sachin Kumar, Vidhisha Balachandran, Pradeep Dasigi, Valentina Pyatkin, Abhilasha Ravichander, Sarah Wiegreffe, Nouha Dziri, Khyathi Chandu, Jack Hessel, et al. The art of saying no: Contextual noncompliance in language models. Advances in Neural Information Pro...

    2024

  27. [35]

    How johnny can persuade llms to jailbreak them: Rethinking persuasion to challenge ai safety by humanizing llms

    Yi Zeng, Hongpeng Lin, Jingwen Zhang, Diyi Yang, Ruoxi Jia, and Weiyan Shi. How johnny can persuade llms to jailbreak them: Rethinking persuasion to challenge ai safety by humanizing llms. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguisti...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Jailbreaking large language models with symbolic mathematics, 2024

    Emet Bethany, Mazal Bethany, Juan Arturo Nolazco Flores, Sumit Kumar Jha, and Peyman Najafirad. Jailbreaking large language models with symbolic mathematics, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Gptfuzzer: Red teaming large language models with auto-generated jailbreak prompts

    Jiahao Yu, Xingwei Lin, Zheng Yu, and Xinyu Xing. Gptfuzzer: Red teaming large language models with auto-generated jailbreak prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10253, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Prefill-based jailbreak: A novel approach of bypassing llm safety boundary

    Yakai Li, Jiekang Hu, Weiduan Sang, Luping Ma, Jing Xie, Weijuan Zhang, Aimin Yu, Shijie Zhao, Qingjia Huang, and Qihang Zhou. Prefill-based jailbreak: A novel approach of bypassing llm safety boundary. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21038, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rethinking how to evaluate language model jailbreak

    Hongyu Cai, Arjun Arunasalam, Leo Y Lin, Antonio Bianchi, and Z Berkay Celik. Rethinking how to evaluate language model jailbreak. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06407, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Sorry-bench: Systematically evaluating large language model safety refusal behaviors

    Tinghao Xie, Xiangyu Qi, Yi Zeng, Yangsibo Huang, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Kaixuan Huang, Luxi He, Boyi Wei, Dacheng Li, Ying Sheng, et al. Sorry-bench: Systematically evaluating large language model safety refusal behaviors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14598, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    The jailbreak tax: How useful are your jailbreak outputs? arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10694, 2025

    Kristina Nikoli´c, Luze Sun, Jie Zhang, and Florian Tramèr. The jailbreak tax: How useful are your jailbreak outputs? arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10694, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Air-bench 2024: A safety benchmark based on risk categories from regulations and policies

    Yi Zeng, Yu Yang, Andy Zhou, Jeffrey Ziwei Tan, Yuheng Tu, Yifan Mai, Kevin Klyman, Minzhou Pan, Ruoxi Jia, Dawn Song, et al. Air-bench 2024: A safety benchmark based on risk categories from regulations and policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17436, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Multimodal situational safety

    Kaiwen Zhou, Chengzhi Liu, Xuandong Zhao, Anderson Compalas, Dawn Song, and Xin Eric Wang. Multimodal situational safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06172, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark

    Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Pr...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods

    Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07958, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Model context protocol (mcp): Landscape, security threats, and future research directions

    Xinyi Hou, Yanjie Zhao, Shenao Wang, and Haoyu Wang. Model context protocol (mcp): Landscape, security threats, and future research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23278, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Multilingual jailbreak chal- lenges in large language models

    Yue Deng, Wenxuan Zhang, Sinno Jialin Pan, and Lidong Bing. Multilingual jailbreak chal- lenges in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06474, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    claude-3-7-sonnet- 20250219

    Xiangyu Qi, Ashwinee Panda, Kaifeng Lyu, Xiao Ma, Subhrajit Roy, Ahmad Beirami, Prateek Mittal, and Peter Henderson. Safety alignment should be made more than just a few tokens deep. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05946, 2024. 12 A Detailed Examples To better illustrate the composi...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.