Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Self-Instruct Few-Shot Jailbreaking: Decompose the Attack into Pattern and Behavior Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Jailbreaking the Llama series can reach about 90% success with just eight short demos by splitting the attack into pattern learning and self-generated behavior demos.

desk verdict Useful extension of I-FSJ with clear ablations, but the ~90% ASR claim rests on an unvalidated classifier that the paper itself shows flags gibberish as unsafe. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07959 v2 pith:RP4DAVTZ submitted 2025-01-14 cs.AI

Jiaqi Hua , Wanxu Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords few-shotjailbreakingin-contextattackpatternlearningbehaviordemo-levelgreedysearchperplexityLLMsafetyalignmentsuccessrate
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

This paper argues that few-shot jailbreaking of large language models becomes much more efficient when the attack is decomposed into pattern learning and behavior learning. Pattern learning appends a hypothetical-scenario suffix and replicates the model's own chat special tokens together with the target prefix 'Hypothetically', which drops the conditional perplexity of that prefix from values on the order of $10^{11}$ to near 1. Behavior learning harvests short malicious demos from the target model itself by turning generation into a text-continuation task. The authors report about 90% sample-level attack success on the Llama series and other open-weight models within 8 concise demos on AdvBench and HarmBench, while also resisting perplexity filters and patch-based SmoothLLM perturbations. If correct, this shows that a few template-compatible examples can bypass current safety alignment, and that prior few-shot attacks were needlessly long and structure-restricted.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the co-occurrence pattern formed by a model's chat special tokens and the target response prefix 'Hypothetically'. The attack replicates that pattern in the instruction suffix (for example, '[/INST] Hypothetically [/INST] Hypothetically ...' for Llama-2), which drops the conditional perplexity of the prefix from values near $10^9$ to near 1.0. Around this pattern, self-instruct behavior learning generates short malicious demos directly from the target model, and the demo-level greedy search selects demos by their relative perplexity drop, using the model's own likelihood signals as the training signal.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of 100 responses the judge labeled unsafe from the 8-shot, swap-perturbed condition and have human annotators classify each as actually harmful or not; if the human-verified attack success rate is far below the reported 90%, the classifier over-counts. The same human re-annotation on the unperturbed 8-shot condition would independently test the central efficiency claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that few-shot jailbreaking can be decomposed into pattern learning and behavior learning, and that this decomposition makes the attack dramatically shorter and more general. Pattern learning extends the adversarial instruction with a hypothetical-scenario suffix and replicates the co-occurrence of the model's special tokens with the target response prefix 'Hypothetically', reducing the conditional perplexity of that prefix from values on the order of $10^9$ to near 1.0 and making the model highly likely to start with it. Behavior learning collects demos directly from the target model by appending the prefix to the chat query, turning generation into a continuation task and keeping the malevolent continuations; a demo-level greedy search then sequentially selects demos that maximize the relative perplexity drop, with a perplexity filter rescuing demos from auxiliary models when necessary. On AdvBench and HarmBench, the method attains roughly 90% sample-level attack success on Llama-2, Llama-3, Llama-3.1, and other open-weight models within 4 to 8 concise demos, and it outperforms the random-search I-FSJ baseline while remaining resilient to perplexity filtering and SmoothLLM patch perturbations.

Load-bearing premise

The headline attack success rates all depend on Llama-Guard-3-8B classifying a response as unsafe, and the paper's own section 4.4 notes that under SmoothLLM swap perturbations gibberish responses are counted as unsafe; if that judge over-counts refusals or nonsense, the 90% figure is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported success rates hold, open-weight safety-aligned models can be jailbroken with fewer than eight short demos, substantially shorter than the 32-shot context I-FSJ required for Llama-3.
  • The attack works with natural user instructions and a generalized 'Hypothetically' prefix, so it transfers across response structures rather than relying on the stepwise 'Step' format of I-FSJ.
  • Because demos are sampled from the target model itself, the method is self-sustaining: a single model provides both the attack template and the examples, without needing a weaker auxiliary model.
  • Perplexity filters that flag high-perplexity adversarial prompts do not catch this attack, since the extended instructions stay within the natural language perplexity range.
  • Demos synthesized from AdvBench transfer to HarmBench test cases, indicating the attack generalizes beyond its source distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A fully automated variant could scan a model's token vocabulary for special tokens that yield low conditional perplexity with a chosen prefix, making the pattern-learning step self-discovering rather than requiring manual template inspection.
  • If partial access (e.g., output logits) is available for a closed-source model, the demo-level greedy search could still run with an assistant model seeding the demo pool, suggesting the attack could in principle be adapted to API-only targets, though the paper does not demonstrate this.
  • The SmoothLLM swap results, where gibberish is classified as unsafe by the judge, imply that the reported robustness numbers may partly reflect judge over-sensitivity rather than actual harmful generation; re-scoring with human annotation would clarify the practical threat.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Self-Instruct Few-Shot Jailbreaking (Self-Instruct-FSJ), an extension of few-shot jailbreaking that replaces the I-FSJ 'Step' target prefix with 'Hypothetically', augments the instruction suffix with repeated model-specific special tokens, samples malicious demos directly from the target model, and selects demos via a greedy search that maximizes the drop in conditional perplexity of the target prefix. The authors report about 90% sample-level ASR on six open-source models within 8 shots on AdvBench and HarmBench subsets, with ablations on demo source, pattern frequency, batch size, similarity threshold, perplexity filtering, and defenses including perplexity filters and SmoothLLM. The method requires access to model logits and special tokens, limiting it to open-source models.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, Self-Instruct-FSJ is an interesting and practical few-shot jailbreak that decomposes the attack into pattern learning and behavior learning, and its demo-level greedy search is more efficient than the random search in I-FSJ. The paper includes useful ablations (batch size, similarity threshold, demo source, perplexity filtering), reports 4-restart statistics in the appendix, includes cross-model demo comparisons, and makes code available, which are all strengths. The attack's dependence on the target model's own prior completions is honestly discussed, and the comparison against multiple baselines is useful. The central limitation is that the evaluation rests entirely on a single LLM judge whose false-positive behavior under gibberish is acknowledged but not quantified, which affects every reported ASR number.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §4.4, Appendix I] The ASR metric is computed exclusively with Llama-Guard-3-8B using the prompt in Appendix I. In §4.4 the authors concede that under SmoothLLM swap perturbations 'random swap tends to elicit gibberish responses, which can be classified as unsafe by Llama-Guard-3-8B,' with only an unquantified manual check. Because the method's pattern learning deliberately produces repetitive 'Hypothetically' sequences (Figure 2), gibberish responses are a realistic concern in the main attack conditions, not only under SmoothLLM. The abstract's headline 'about 90% ASR' therefore rests on a judge whose false-positive behavior on gibberish is acknowledged but unmeasured. I request a human-validated subset spanning the attack conditions, a confusion matrix of the judge against human labels, or an independent second judge, together with a per-condition breakdown of judge disagreements.
  2. [Abstract, §4.3 (Table 2)] The central quantitative claim uses sample-level ASR (S-LVL), the proportion of samples with at least one unsafe response out of 16 generations. For several models the zero-shot baseline already achieves high S-LVL: Llama-3 with 8 patterns reaches 80.0% zero-shot and 94.0% with 8 shots; OpenChat-3.6 reaches 98.0% zero-shot and 100.0% with 4 shots. The abstract says 'about 90% Attack Success Rate (ASR)' without specifying which variant, and the reader must infer S-LVL. Since S-LVL is saturated at high values, the few-shot improvement over the zero-shot baseline is much smaller than the R-LVL numbers suggest (e.g., Llama-3 R-LVL is 30.8% at 8 shots). Please state the metric explicitly in the abstract, report both R-LVL and S-LVL in the main text, and provide confidence intervals for the 50-case test sets; an S-LVL of 90% on N=50 has a 95% confidence interval of roughly ±8%, so the headline difference between zero-shot and few-shot may not be statistically significant.
  3. [§4.4 and Table 4] The claim of robustness to SmoothLLM swap perturbations is not supported by the evidence as presented. The ASR rises from 36.1% (no defense, 8 shots) to 49.0% under swap, which the authors attribute to gibberish being classified as unsafe. The manual check is stated without the number of cases inspected, the criteria used, or inter-annotator agreement. Since the paper elsewhere dismisses rule-based classifiers for false negatives, the same evidentiary standard should apply here: a quantitative human evaluation of the swapped responses is needed before concluding that the method is resilient to this defense. If the increase is an artifact of the judge, the defense results in Table 4 must be re-run with a validated metric.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.5] The table caption reads 'Tabel 5'; please correct the typo.
  2. [§3.2 and Algorithm 1] The terms 'pattern frequency' and 'co-occurrence pattern' are used informally; please give a precise definition in the text or in Algorithm 1 (e.g., the number of repetitions of the special-token-plus-prefix unit) so the experiments are reproducible.
  3. [Table 2] Table 2 spans multiple pages with a 'Continued on next page' note; the visual mapping of columns to models is easy to lose. Please restructure the table (e.g., one panel per model) or add clear column headers on each page.
  4. [§4.2] The sentence 'we can sample at least one malicious response from each target model for more than 90% AdvBench instructions' should be tied to the specific metric in Table 1 (S-LVL ASR) and accompanied by a confidence interval, since the pool size is 128 responses per instruction.
  5. [Figure 2] The patterns=16 example shows 'Hypothetically [/INST] Hypothetically...' but the caption says it illustrates 'circular repetition phenomenon'; it would be clearer to label whether the response contains actual harmful content or only repetition, since this is relevant to the judge-reliability concern.
  6. [Appendix A] The limitation regarding 'full access to the generation query' should clarify that this refers to the target model's own chat-template generation, not merely API-level access, and that this constraint also prevents the method from applying to closed models where logits and special tokens are unavailable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: the attack's heuristic objective (conditional perplexity of the prefix) is distinct from its reported metric (externally judged unsafe responses), and headline results are cross-checked on HarmBench.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in any of the enumerated senses. The optimization target of demo-level greedy search (Algorithm 1) is the conditional perplexity of the target prefix 'Hypothetically', while the reported claim is ASR judged by Llama-Guard-3-8B on unsafe content; these are different quantities, and the paper reports both (e.g., Table 2's ASR and Avg Drop columns), so the headline ASR is not defined as, or equivalent to, the fitted perplexity by construction. The self-instruct demo pool is a bootstrap technique: demos are sampled from the target model using the same adversarial suffix and prefix, but the final evaluation uses randomly selected AdvBench test cases (with a cosine-similarity filter that excludes near-duplicate demo instructions) and, importantly, HarmBench, an external benchmark not used for demo synthesis (Table 10), which gives the central efficiency claim independent grounding. No self-citation is load-bearing: the only cited prior work on I-FSJ and the evaluation prompt are external to the present authors. The Section 4.4 admission that Llama-Guard-3-8B can classify gibberish as unsafe under SmoothLLM swap perturbations is a legitimate measurement-validity concern about the absolute ASR numbers, but it is not a circular reduction of the method's output to its input; it belongs to correctness risk rather than circularity analysis. Overall, the claims rest on empirical comparisons against baselines and external benchmarks, not on definitional equivalence or self-citation chains.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on in-context learning assumptions, an attention-recency heuristic, the claim that emitting a short prefix makes harmful continuation easy, and the reliability of the Llama-Guard judge. These are empirical or domain assumptions, not proven theorems, and none are introduced as new physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Co-occurrence pattern frequency = 4 (default); 8 (advanced models like Llama-2 and Llama-3); 16 tested in Figure 2
    Number of times the model-specific special token plus 'Hypothetically' is repeated in the instruction suffix. Chosen per model class; too few raises target prefix perplexity while too many causes behavior degeneration (Figure 2). Central to the pattern-learning component.
  • Demo-pool similarity threshold s = 0.6
    Cosine similarity cutoff (all-MiniLM-L6-v2 embeddings) to filter candidate demos that leak the target instruction. Ablation in Appendix K shows ASR robust to this setting, so it is hand-set but not strongly load-bearing.
  • Greedy search batch size B = 64 (default; ablation up to 128)
    Number of random demo candidates per selection step. Appendix K shows ASR increases with batch size and saturates near 128, indicating a tuned efficiency-performance tradeoff.
  • Perplexity filtering threshold = varied (<=9, <=6, <=3; Table 3)
    Optional filter to remove high-perplexity demos sampled from auxiliary models. Table 3 shows best around 6, with stricter thresholds hurting diversity, so it is a tuned hyperparameter when used.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption In-context learning adapts the model to follow instruction-response demonstrations (Brown et al., cited).
    The entire FSJ framework assumes that conditioning on malicious demos induces the model to continue the pattern on the target request. Invoked in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Generation depends more on the context at the end of the input query due to the attention mechanism.
    Used to justify sequential demo selection in demo-level greedy search (Section 3.2, Algorithm 1). Not formally proven; if positional weighting differs, the search ordering may be suboptimal.
  • domain assumption Once the model emits the target response prefix 'Hypothetically', it becomes trivial for it to continue with harmful content.
    Basis for optimizing only prefix likelihood and for self-instruct demo generation (Section 3.2). Empirically supported by Table 1 but not guaranteed across models.
  • domain assumption The model-specific special tokens form a co-occurrence pattern with the prefix that reduces conditional perplexity.
    Core of pattern learning; validated empirically in Table 7 for the tested models, but remains a heuristic about tokenizer and template artifacts.
  • domain assumption Llama-Guard-3-8B is a reliable judge of whether a response is unsafe.
    All ASR numbers depend on this classifier; Section 4.4 notes gibberish under SmoothLLM swap is classified unsafe, with only an unquantified manual check correcting for it.
  • domain assumption Perplexity can serve as a loss proxy for target-prefix likelihood without numerical underflow.
    Used in Algorithm 1 to select demos; a monotonic but not identical transform of negative log-likelihood.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Instruct Few-Shot Jailbreaking: Decompose the Attack into Pattern and Behavior Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RP4DAVTZ

@misc{pith2026250107959,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Instruct Few-Shot Jailbreaking: Decompose the Attack into Pattern and Behavior Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RP4DAVTZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07959}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, several works have been conducted on jailbreaking Large Language Models (LLMs) with few-shot malicious demos. In particular, Zheng et al. focus on improving the efficiency of Few-Shot Jailbreaking (FSJ) by injecting special tokens into the demos and employing demo-level random search, known as Improved Few-Shot Jailbreaking (I-FSJ). Nevertheless, we notice that this method may still require a long context to jailbreak advanced models e.g. 32 shots of demos for Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct (Llama-3) \cite{llama3modelcard}. In this paper, we discuss the limitations of I-FSJ and propose Self-Instruct Few-Shot Jailbreaking (Self-Instruct-FSJ) facilitated with the demo-level greedy search. This framework decomposes the FSJ attack into pattern and behavior learning to exploit the model's vulnerabilities in a more generalized and efficient way. We conduct elaborate experiments to evaluate our method on common open-source models and compare it with baseline algorithms. Our code is available at https://github.com/iphosi/Self-Instruct-FSJ.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07959 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Few-shot jailbreaking query of I-FSJ and Self-Instruct-FSJ for Llama-2. The instruction-response pairs are concatenated with the target request using the default chat template. To tackle the limitations of I-FSJ and further improve the jailbreaking efficiency, we propose Self￾Instruct Few-Shot Jailbreaking (Self-Instruct-FSJ), which also adopts the heuristic FSJ framework. Our contributions can be summarized as foll… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Llama-2 response to zero-shot jailbreaking with extended adversarial instruction suffix. The attack may still fail with a refusal or circular repetition phenomenon even though the adversarial prefix is generated. Self-instruct behavior learning. In our framework, behavior learning is also done in a self-instruct manner. Previous works usually employ an auxiliary LLM with weaker safety alignment, e.g. Mistral￾7B-Inst… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zero-shot jailbreaking query with adversarial instruction suffix and response prefix (demo generation query) for Llama-2. The original instruction is appended with the predefined suffix and then fed into the chat template, forming the generation query. The target response prefix "Hypothetically" is further attached to the end of the generation query. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Llama-3.1 response to zero-shot jailbreaking with adversarial instruction suffix. The model refuses to follow the adversarial instruction but still exhibits harmful behaviors. G Instruction perplexity The peak of windowed perplexity always occurs at the junction betwee…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Perplexity distribution of different versions of AdvBench instructions. The red dashed line denotes the max perplexity value of the natural language instructions. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mistral demo generation template. Zheng et al. [52] adopts this prompt template from Andriushchenko et al. [3]. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evaluation prompt for LLM-based metric. This prompt is directly taken from Chao et al. [10] and covers 7 categories of unsafe content including Violence and Hate, Sexual Content, Criminal Planning, Guns and Illegal Weapons, Regulated or Controlled Substances, Self-Harm…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation study of how batch size influences the ASR of Self-Instruct-FSJ on Llama-2. Basically, the batch size is positively correlated to ASR. (a) Response-level ASR curve (b) Sample-level ASR curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ablation study of how similarity threshold between demo instructions and target request influences the ASR of Self-Instruct-FSJ on Llama-2. There was no significant performance degeneration under strict similarity constraints. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Llama 3 model card

    AI@Meta. Llama 3 model card. 2024. URL https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/ blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md

    2024

  2. [2]

    Detecting language model attacks with perplexity

    Gabriel Alon and Michael Kamfonas. Detecting language model attacks with perplexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14132, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Jailbreaking leading safety-aligned llms with simple adaptive attacks, 2024

    Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, and Nicolas Flammarion. Jailbreaking leading safety-aligned llms with simple adaptive attacks, 2024. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2404.02151

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Many-shot jailbreaking

    Cem Anil, Esin Durmus, Nina Rimsky, Mrinank Sharma, Joe Benton, Sandipan Kundu, Joshua Batson, Meg Tong, Jesse Mu, Daniel J Ford, et al. Many-shot jailbreaking. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Foundational challenges in assuring alignment and safety of large language models

    Usman Anwar, Abulhair Saparov, Javier Rando, Daniel Paleka, Miles Turpin, Peter Hase, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Erik Jenner, Stephen Casper, Oliver Sourbut, et al. Foundational challenges in assuring alignment and safety of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09932, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Safety-tuned llamas: Lessons from improving the safety of large language models that follow instructions

    Federico Bianchi, Mirac Suzgun, Giuseppe Attanasio, Paul Röttger, Dan Jurafsky, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and James Zou. Safety-tuned llamas: Lessons from improving the safety of large language models that follow instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07875, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  8. [8]

    Stealthy and persistent unalignment on large language models via backdoor injections

    Yuanpu Cao, Bochuan Cao, and Jinghui Chen. Stealthy and persistent unalignment on large language models via backdoor injections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00027, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    Combating misinformation in the age of llms: Opportunities and challenges

    Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. Combating misinformation in the age of llms: Opportunities and challenges. AI Magazine, 45(3):354–368, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Safe rlhf: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback

    Josef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Ruiyang Sun, Jiaming Ji, Xinbo Xu, Mickel Liu, Yizhou Wang, and Yaodong Yang. Safe rlhf: Safe reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12773, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    Attacks, defenses and evaluations for llm conversation safety: A survey

    Zhichen Dong, Zhanhui Zhou, Chao Yang, Jing Shao, and Yu Qiao. Attacks, defenses and evaluations for llm conversation safety: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09283, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Red- teaming for generative ai: Silver bullet or security theater? In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, pages 421–437, 2024

    Michael Feffer, Anusha Sinha, Wesley H Deng, Zachary C Lipton, and Hoda Heidari. Red- teaming for generative ai: Silver bullet or security theater? In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, pages 421–437, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Badllama: cheaply removing safety fine-tuning from llama 2-chat 13b, 2024

    Pranav Gade, Simon Lermen, Charlie Rogers-Smith, and Jeffrey Ladish. Badllama: cheaply removing safety fine-tuning from llama 2-chat 13b, 2024. Cited on, page 27. 10

    2024

  10. [18]

    Llama guard: Llm-based input-output safeguard for human-ai conversations

    Hakan Inan, Kartikeya Upasani, Jianfeng Chi, Rashi Rungta, Krithika Iyer, Yuning Mao, Michael Tontchev, Qing Hu, Brian Fuller, Davide Testuggine, et al. Llama guard: Llm-based input-output safeguard for human-ai conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06674, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Baseline de- fenses for adversarial attacks against aligned language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00614, 2023

    Neel Jain, Avi Schwarzschild, Yuxin Wen, Gowthami Somepalli, John Kirchenbauer, Ping-yeh Chiang, Micah Goldblum, Aniruddha Saha, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. Baseline de- fenses for adversarial attacks against aligned language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00614, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Perplexity—a measure of the difficulty of speech recognition tasks

    Fred Jelinek, Robert L Mercer, Lalit R Bahl, and James K Baker. Perplexity—a measure of the difficulty of speech recognition tasks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62(S1): S63–S63, 1977

    1977

  13. [21]

    Mistral 7b

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Artprompt: Ascii art-based jailbreak attacks against aligned llms

    Fengqing Jiang, Zhangchen Xu, Luyao Niu, Zhen Xiang, Bhaskar Ramasubramanian, Bo Li, and Radha Poovendran. Artprompt: Ascii art-based jailbreak attacks against aligned llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11753, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lora fine-tuning efficiently undoes safety training in llama 2-chat 70b

    Simon Lermen, Charlie Rogers-Smith, and Jeffrey Ladish. Lora fine-tuning efficiently undoes safety training in llama 2-chat 70b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20624, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Superfiltering: Weak-to-strong data filtering for fast instruction-tuning

    Ming Li, Yong Zhang, Shwai He, Zhitao Li, Hongyu Zhao, Jianzong Wang, Ning Cheng, and Tianyi Zhou. Superfiltering: Weak-to-strong data filtering for fast instruction-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00530, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Deepinception: Hypnotize large language model to be jailbreaker

    Xuan Li, Zhanke Zhou, Jianing Zhu, Jiangchao Yao, Tongliang Liu, and Bo Han. Deepinception: Hypnotize large language model to be jailbreaker. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03191, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Rain: Your language models can align themselves without finetuning

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Jinjing Zhao, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. Rain: Your language models can align themselves without finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07124, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    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

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Harmbench: A standardized evaluation frame- work for automated red teaming and robust refusal, 2024.URL https://arxiv

    Mantas Mazeika, Long Phan, Xuwang Yin, Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Norman Mu, Elham Sakhaee, Nathaniel Li, Steven Basart, Bo Li, et al. Harmbench: A standardized evaluation frame- work for automated red teaming and robust refusal, 2024.URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2402.04249, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    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, 35:2773...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Llm self defense: By self examination, llms know they are being tricked

    Mansi Phute, Alec Helbling, Matthew Hull, ShengYun Peng, Sebastian Szyller, Cory Cornelius, and Duen Horng Chau. Llm self defense: By self examination, llms know they are being tricked. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07308, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Universal jailbreak backdoors from poisoned human feedback

    Javier Rando and Florian Tramèr. Universal jailbreak backdoors from poisoned human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14455, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks

    N Reimers. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ex- ploring safety generalization challenges of large language models via code

    Qibing Ren, Chang Gao, Jing Shao, Junchi Yan, Xin Tan, Wai Lam, and Lizhuang Ma. Ex- ploring safety generalization challenges of large language models via code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07865, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Smoothllm: Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks

    Alexander Robey, Eric Wong, Hamed Hassani, and George J Pappas. Smoothllm: Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03684, 2023. 11

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, September 2024

    Qwen Team. Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, September 2024. URL https:// qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5/

    2024

  29. [37]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Open- chat: Advancing open-source language models with mixed-quality data

    Guan Wang, Sijie Cheng, Xianyuan Zhan, Xiangang Li, Sen Song, and Yang Liu. Open- chat: Advancing open-source language models with mixed-quality data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11235, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Backdoor activation attack: Attack large language models using activation steering for safety-alignment

    Haoran Wang and Kai Shu. Backdoor activation attack: Attack large language models using activation steering for safety-alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09433, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, and Jacob Steinhardt. Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Jailbreak and guard aligned language models with only few in-context demonstrations

    Zeming Wei, Yifei Wang, Ang Li, Yichuan Mo, and Yisen Wang. Jailbreak and guard aligned language models with only few in-context demonstrations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06387, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Defending chatgpt against jailbreak attack via self-reminder

    Fangzhao Wu, Yueqi Xie, Jingwei Yi, Jiawei Shao, Justin Curl, Lingjuan Lyu, Qifeng Chen, and Xing Xie. Defending chatgpt against jailbreak attack via self-reminder. 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Instructions as backdoors: Backdoor vulnerabilities of instruction tuning for large language models

    Jiashu Xu, Mingyu Derek Ma, Fei Wang, Chaowei Xiao, and Muhao Chen. Instructions as backdoors: Backdoor vulnerabilities of instruction tuning for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14710, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Qwen2 technical report

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jin Xu, Jingren Zhou, Jinze Bai, Jinzheng...

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Shadow alignment: The ease of subverting safely-aligned language models.(2023)

    Xianjun Yang, Xiao Wang, Qi Zhang, Linda Petzold, William Yang Wang, Xun Zhao, and Dahua Lin. Shadow alignment: The ease of subverting safely-aligned language models.(2023). arXiv preprint arxiv:2310.02949, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A survey on large language model (llm) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly

    Yifan Yao, Jinhao Duan, Kaidi Xu, Yuanfang Cai, Zhibo Sun, and Yue Zhang. A survey on large language model (llm) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. High-Confidence Computing, page 100211, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Low-resource languages jailbreak gpt-4

    Zheng-Xin Yong, Cristina Menghini, and Stephen H Bach. Low-resource languages jailbreak gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02446, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gpt-4 is too smart to be safe: Stealthy chat with llms via cipher

    Youliang Yuan, Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Pinjia He, Shuming Shi, and Zhaopeng Tu. Gpt-4 is too smart to be safe: Stealthy chat with llms via cipher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06463, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06373, 2024. 12

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks through goal prioritization

    Zhexin Zhang, Junxiao Yang, Pei Ke, Fei Mi, Hongning Wang, and Minlie Huang. Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks through goal prioritization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09096, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Diversity helps jailbreak large language models

    Weiliang Zhao, Daniel Ben-Levi, Junfeng Yang, and Chengzhi Mao. Diversity helps jailbreak large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04223, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Improved few- shot jailbreaking can circumvent aligned language models and their defenses

    Xiaosen Zheng, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Qian Liu, Jing Jiang, and Min Lin. Improved few- shot jailbreaking can circumvent aligned language models and their defenses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01288, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Emulated disalignment: Safety alignment for large language models may backfire! arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12343, 2024

    Zhanhui Zhou, Jie Liu, Zhichen Dong, Jiaheng Liu, Chao Yang, Wanli Ouyang, and Yu Qiao. Emulated disalignment: Safety alignment for large language models may backfire! arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12343, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Starling-7b: Improving llm helpfulness & harmlessness with rlaif, November 2023

    Banghua Zhu, Evan Frick, Tianhao Wu, Hanlin Zhu, Karthik Ganesan, Wei-Lin Chiang, Jian Zhang, and Jiantao Jiao. Starling-7b: Improving llm helpfulness & harmlessness with rlaif, November 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Sure" and

    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. A Limitations The major limitation of our work lies in three aspects. For s...

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    As shown in Table 10, our method can still achieve remarkable performance on HarmBench [28]

    test cases. As shown in Table 10, our method can still achieve remarkable performance on HarmBench [28]. (a) Response-level ASR curve (b) Sample-level ASR curve Figure 8: Ablation study of how batch size influences the ASR of Self-Instruct-FSJ on Llama-2. Basically, the batch ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.