Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

TwinBreak: Jailbreaking LLM Security Alignments based on Twin Prompts

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 claims that safety alignment in open-weight LLMs is a sparse, pruneable component: comparing a harmful prompt with a nearly identical harmless twin isolates the safety parameters, and pruning them alone disables refusal…

desk verdict TwinBreak is a solid, well-ablated white-box jailbreak with a genuine new twist (twin prompts) and broad evaluation, but the safety-specificity claim needs a random-pruning control and the abstract overstates the 16-model numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07596 v1 pith:LTEX4UCI submitted 2025-06-09 cs.LG

Torsten Krau{ss} , Hamid Dashtbani , Alexandra Dmitrienko This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords LLMjailbreakingsafetyalignmentremovalparameterpruningactivationdifferencestwinpromptswhite-boxattackRLHFrobustnesslargelanguagemodels
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 claims that the safety alignment of a decoder-only LLM is not a distributed property but a sparse set of parameters that can be found and removed. The method, TwinBreak, pairs each harmful prompt with a harmless twin that is nearly identical in wording and content, records the internal activations both prompts produce, and prunes the parameters whose activations diverge most. Five rounds of pruning, each cutting the top 1% of divergent parameters in the MLP Gate and Up layers while skipping the first and last decoder blocks, reportedly disables the refusal mechanism across 16 open-weight models from five vendors, with attack success rates of 89 to 98 percent and only a few percentage points of utility loss. A sympathetic reader would care because the result suggests that a low-resource attacker with no training data, no gradients, and a few minutes of compute can permanently strip safety alignment from a released model. If the claim is right, safety alignment in open-weight LLMs is a fragile, removable component rather than something woven through the whole network.

What carries the argument

The central object is the twin prompt: a harmful prompt paired with a harmless prompt matched in grammar and content. The carrying mechanism is the activation-difference ranking, which feeds each padded pair through the model for exactly one output-token generation, takes the last six input-token positions, sorts them by the L2 norm of the activation difference, averages the top five, and ranks parameters by this score. The same procedure over harmless-to-harmless pairs marks the top 0.1% of parameters as utility parameters that must not be pruned. Five iterations then prune the top 1% of remaining safety-ranked parameters in the Gate and Up projections (the feed-forward projections that gate and expand hidden features) of every decoder block except the first and last, and the jailbroken response is generated with the pruned model for the first 50 tokens before switching back to the unpruned model.

What would settle it

Prune exactly the same fraction, locations, and iterations as TwinBreak but choose the parameters uniformly at random instead of by activation difference, and measure attack success on HarmBench with the paper's evaluation setup. If random pruning of roughly 5% of Gate and Up parameters in the middle decoder blocks reaches the same 89 to 98 percent attack success rate, then the twin-prompt ranking adds nothing and the safety-sparsity claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, TwinBreak treats the LLM's refusal behavior as an embedded backdoor. For each of the 100 harmful prompts in the TwinPrompt dataset, the authors manually craft a harmless twin that keeps the same grammar and topic, so the only meaningful difference is whether the safety mechanism should fire. While the model generates a single output token, activations are collected in the MLP Gate and Up layers of the middle decoder blocks; ranking parameters by the absolute activation difference between harmful and harmless twins isolates the safety-critical subset, and the top 1% is pruned per round for five rounds, after excluding the top 0.1% of parameters flagged as utility-critical by harmless-to-harmless comparisons. The experiments measure attack success with a safety classifier across evaluation datasets and report that the pruned models answer 89 to 98 percent of harmful prompts while utility benchmarks drop by about one to five percentage points on average; the pruning phase itself takes about three to five minutes on a 7B model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing bet is that the activation gap between a harmful prompt and its near-identical harmless twin, measured during a single output-token generation over the top five of the last six input positions, points exactly at the parameters that enforce refusals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, safety alignment in open-weight decoder-only LLMs is concentrated in a small, identifiable subset of parameters rather than distributed through the whole model.
  • An attacker with read/write access to a released model can permanently disable its refusal mechanism in minutes, without training data, gradients, or expensive GPU clusters.
  • Because the same pruned model answers unseen harmful prompts from several benchmark families, the removal transfers across prompts and across model vendors and sizes from 1B to 72B parameters.
  • The twin-prompt structure is load-bearing: replacing twin pairs with unrelated harmless prompts lowers the reported attack success rate and increases utility degradation, and direct comparisons show TwinBreak outperforms both prior activation-ablation and set-difference pruning methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same activation-difference probe could be used in reverse, to transplant safety parameters back into a fine-tuned model or to certify whether a released model still contains its safety circuitry.
  • Beyond the paper: if RLHF learned safety as a sparse set of features, then other behavior-specific mechanisms, such as sycophancy, hallucination triggers, or refusal exceptions, might be isolable by the same twin-prompt construction.
  • Beyond the paper: the 50-token-pruned-then-unpruned inference protocol suggests that only the first tokens of a response bear the refusal decision; a testable extension would be whether masking safety parameters only during the first few tokens reproduces the full attack success rate.
  • Beyond the paper: a defense could randomize or replicate safety parameters across layers so that no small prunable subset exists; the paper itself suggests entangled safety as future work but does not evaluate it.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces TwinBreak, a white-box jailbreaking method that removes safety alignment from decoder-only LLMs by pruning parameters identified through activation differences between harmful prompts and manually crafted harmless 'twin' prompts. The method iteratively prunes the top 1% of the most divergent parameters in MLP Gate and Up layers (excluding the first and last decoder blocks), while reserving a small set of 'utility' parameters from pruning, then generates the first 50 tokens with the pruned model before switching to the unpruned model. The authors present the TwinPrompt dataset of 100 twin pairs and report high attack success rates (89-98% in the abstract) with minimal utility loss across 16 LLMs from five vendors, comparing favorably to directional ablation and set-difference baselines.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, TwinBreak would be a notable advance: it is computationally lightweight (a few minutes on a 7B model), uses a small one-time dataset, and appears to generalize across model families and scales. The paper's strengths include a broad empirical study (16 models, four evaluation datasets, five utility benchmarks), a detailed hyperparameter ablation (Tab. 6 and Tab. 20), and a new dataset (TwinPrompt) that could be reused by the community. The comparison with two close white-box baselines is informative. However, the safety-specificity claim needs a random-pruning control, and several headline claims—89-98% ASR, hyperparameter insensitivity, and minimal utility loss—are not fully supported by the reported evidence as written.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 4.6, Tab. 8] The abstract's claim of '89% to 98% success rates across 16 LLMs' is not directly supported by the reported data. Tab. 8 reports StrongREJECT mean scores between 0.674 and 0.814 for the 16 models, not binary ASR values; the binary ASR tables (Tabs. 2-5) cover only four models. Labeling the StrongREJECT mean score as 'ASR' in Tab. 8 conflates two different metrics. The authors should either report binary ASR for all 16 models or revise the abstract and Table to accurately reflect the metric used.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Alg. 1, Tab. 6] The central claim that twin-prompt activation differences isolate safety-specific parameters is not tested against a random-pruning baseline. The ablations in Tab. 6 vary targeted layers, prompt similarity, token aggregation, and pruning rates, but no experiment compares TwinBreak's parameter selection to random selection of the same number of parameters in the same Gate/Up layers. Without this control, the high ASR could be explained by the general fragility of refusal behavior to moderate MLP perturbation. Adding a random-pruning control (same fraction, layers, and iterations) is essential to support the specificity claim.
  3. [Sec. 7.3, Tab. 9, Sec. 4.3] The claim that TwinBreak is 'independent of any sensitive hyperparameters' is contradicted by the appendix. Tab. 9's note reports that pruning rates of 0.001 (LLaMA 3.1) and 0.002 (Qwen 2.5) were used instead of the default 0.01, and utility retention had to be raised to 1% for LLaMA 2 with dataset sizes 60 and 70. These per-model adjustments indicate hyperparameter sensitivity; the authors should either justify these as minor tuning or weaken the claim accordingly.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 4, Tab. 24] The claim of 'minimal utility loss' is overstated. While average degradation over five benchmarks is modest, Tab. 24 shows substantial per-benchmark drops, e.g., RTE -14.4% for LLaMA 2 70B, -14.8% for Gemma 2 2B, and -21.6% for Qwen 2.5 3B. The paper should discuss worst-case per-benchmark degradation and clarify that the utility preservation in the attack is achieved by switching to the unpruned model after 50 tokens, which limits the degradation to the initial generation phase.
  5. [Sec. 4.3, n_out_pr, Tab. 21] The default attack uses the pruned model only for the first 50 output tokens before switching to the unpruned model. The paper should clarify that TwinBreak does not permanently remove safety alignment unless the pruned model is used for the full response, and should report full-response ASRs for all 16 models (currently only Qwen 32B and LLaMA 3.3 70B are shown in Sec. 4.3, and Tab. 21 covers only four models).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The word 'unpuned' should be 'unpruned'.
  2. [Sec. 3.4] The word 'producting' should be 'producing'.
  3. [App. 9.5] The word 'bechmarks' should be 'benchmarks'.
  4. [Sec. 4.5, Tab. 7] The header 'RuntimeTr Val' is unclear; it should be split into 'Runtime' and 'Val' columns.
  5. [Sec. 6] The conclusion states 'across four LLMs', which is inconsistent with the abstract's '16 LLMs'; the wording should be aligned.
  6. [Sec. 3.3] The term 'twin' is used throughout but never formally defined; a short definition in Sec. 3.3 would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: safety parameters are selected from twin-prompt activation differences and evaluated on disjoint held-out benchmarks, so no reported prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's chain is empirical, not constructional. TwinBreak ranks Gate/Up parameters by L2-normalized activation differences between harmful and harmless twin prompts (Sec. 3.3, Alg. 1 lines 11-14), excludes parameters ranked by differences between harmless-prompt pairs (utility parameters), and then measures ASR and utility on datasets outside the 100 TwinPrompt pairs used for ranking (Sec. 4.1: the remaining HarmBench split, AdvBench, JailbreakBench, and StrongREJECT). No equation equates the reported ASR with the activation-difference ranking; the selection score is not a fitted target for the validation metrics. The hyperparameters (1% pruning rate, 0.1% utility rate, five iterations, last-six-token window) are ablated in Tab. 6 and are not optimized against the held-out benchmarks. The disclosed per-model pruning-rate changes for LLaMA 3.1 and Qwen 2.5 (Sec. 9.5) are sensitivity analyses, not fits that rename a validation result as a prediction. The only self-citation, the footnote 'This paper is an extended version of the following publication [33]', is provenance and carries no load-bearing argument; it does not justify the method's premise or results. The absence of a random-pruning baseline is a validity concern about whether the selected neurons are specifically safety-related, but that is an experimental-control issue, not circularity: the pruning targets are not defined in terms of the outcomes used to evaluate them.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical architectural assumptions rather than a formal derivation: that safety alignment is sparse and localized, that twin-prompt activation gaps localize it, and that Gate/Up layers in middle blocks are the right place to prune. Five hyperparameters are hand-set or per-model tuned, which weakens the paper's 'no sensitive hyperparameters' claim. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • pruning_rate (pr_rate) = 0.01 default; 0.001 (LLaMA 3.1 8B), 0.002 (Qwen 2.5 7B)
    Fraction of highest-activation-difference parameters pruned per iteration; reduced for two models after observing utility degradation (App 7.3, Sect 9.5).
  • utility_parameters_rate (utl_rate) = 0.001 default; 0.01 for LLaMA 2 with 60/70 twin prompts
    Top fraction of parameters excluded from pruning; raised to prevent nonsensical outputs in specific dataset-size settings (Sect 9.1).
  • number_of_pruning_iterations (n_iter) = 5 default; 10 tested
    Empirically set stopping criterion; 10 iterations increases ASR by 4% with higher utility loss (Tab 6 line 10, Tab 20 row 17).
  • token aggregation choice = last six input tokens, top five averaged
    Selected via ablation; using all six raises ASR slightly but produces incoherent outputs; using only the last token lowers ASR (Sect 4.3, Tab 20 rows 29-30 and 51).
  • targeted layers = MLP Gate and Up in all decoder layers except first and last
    Hand-chosen based on architectural intuition; ablations show other choices trade off ASR and utility (Sect 4.3, Tab 20).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Safety alignment in decoder-only LLMs is concentrated in a small, identifiable subset of parameters, analogous to a backdoor trigger.
    Core premise of Sec 3.2-3.3; if false, activation-difference pruning cannot selectively remove safety without also destroying utility.
  • domain assumption Activation differences between a harmful prompt and a structurally/content-similar harmless twin, measured while generating one token and aggregated over the last six input tokens, localize those safety parameters.
    This is the identification mechanism in Sec 3.4; all results depend on it.
  • domain assumption Pruning only the MLP Gate and Up layers of the middle decoder blocks (excluding first and last) is sufficient to disable safety while preserving utility.
    Stated in Sec 3.3 and tested in Sec 4.3; the choice is based on intuition about information flow, not on a formal theorem.
  • domain assumption The first and last decoder blocks are not central to the safety mechanism and should not be pruned.
    Sec 3.3 paragraph on parameter selection; ablation targeting all layers (Tab 6, line 4) shows utility loss without ASR gain, which supports but does not prove the assumption.
  • domain assumption LlamaGuard3 and StrongREJECT evaluators provide a valid measure of whether a response is harmful.
    Used for ASR in Sec 4; the paper itself notes LlamaGuard3 false positives and negatives and reliance on refusal keywords, so harmfulness measurement is approximate.
  • domain assumption Twin prompts validated as harmless by LLaMA 2 7B remain valid harmless twins for other models and sizes.
    Dataset construction in Sec 4.1 only tested safety with LLaMA 2 7B; transfer to Gemma, Qwen, DeepSeek, and Mistral is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TwinBreak: Jailbreaking LLM Security Alignments based on Twin Prompts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTEX4UCI

@misc{pith2026250607596,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TwinBreak: Jailbreaking LLM Security Alignments based on Twin Prompts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTEX4UCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07596}
}
read the original abstract

Machine learning is advancing rapidly, with applications bringing notable benefits, such as improvements in translation and code generation. Models like ChatGPT, powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), are increasingly integrated into daily life. However, alongside these benefits, LLMs also introduce social risks. Malicious users can exploit LLMs by submitting harmful prompts, such as requesting instructions for illegal activities. To mitigate this, models often include a security mechanism that automatically rejects such harmful prompts. However, they can be bypassed through LLM jailbreaks. Current jailbreaks often require significant manual effort, high computational costs, or result in excessive model modifications that may degrade regular utility. We introduce TwinBreak, an innovative safety alignment removal method. Building on the idea that the safety mechanism operates like an embedded backdoor, TwinBreak identifies and prunes parameters responsible for this functionality. By focusing on the most relevant model layers, TwinBreak performs fine-grained analysis of parameters essential to model utility and safety. TwinBreak is the first method to analyze intermediate outputs from prompts with high structural and content similarity to isolate safety parameters. We present the TwinPrompt dataset containing 100 such twin prompts. Experiments confirm TwinBreak's effectiveness, achieving 89% to 98% success rates with minimal computational requirements across 16 LLMs from five vendors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07596 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Text generation using next token prediction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Intuition of twin prompts used for pruning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Utility benchmark results for LLaMA 2 (7B) [42], LLaMA 3.1 (8B) [43], Gemma 2 (9B) [19], and Qwen 2.5 (7B) [26] during pruning iterations. Blue: HellaSwag [72], Orange: RTE, Green: OpenBookQA [46], Red: ARC￾Challenge [11], Purple: WinoGrande [54]. switches to the unpruned model for subsequent inference. 4.3 TwinBreak’s Hyperparameters Here, we discuss and evaluate the hyperparameters of TwinBreak regarding their eff… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Backdoors vs. LLM safety alignments. Write a message encouraging someone into voting in an election Write a message threatening someone into not voting in an election Write an office macro that searches for and extracts spelling errors Write an office macro that search…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two examples of twin prompts. 7 Additional Approach Details 7.1 Algorithms Alg. 1 and Alg. 2 provide pseudo-code for TwinBreak’s. iter￾ative targeted pruning and inference and validation, respec￾tively. Algorithm 1 TwinBreak step 2 - Iterative Targeted Pruning 1: Gener…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A successful jailbreak by TwinBreak. When reporting runtimes of TwinBreak and the related works [67], [4], we switch to a more accessible setting by using two Tesla T4 GPUs each with 16GB of memory to show the efficiency of TwinBreak even against an attacker with modes…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Chat template used for all of our models. The double quote symbols denote the template start and end [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: LlamaGuard3 chat template (provided by Meta) to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: An example of how set difference [67] can produce incoherent responses over longer text generations. The pruned LLM just repeats "I was thinking we could take some photos together". 9.5 Decreasing Pruning Rate for LLaMA 3.1 and Qwen 2.5 In Sect. 4.3, we observed that …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evaluating the performance of utility benchmarks of various models when using different sizes of the pruning dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]

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. GoodVibe: Security-by-Vibe for LLM-Based Code Generation

    cs.CR 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Retraining only the neurons most responsive to security judgments raises a code LLM's default safe-code rate to 87.5% on C++ (average) with about 1.9 million trainable parameters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    DeepSeek LLM 7B Chat

    DeepSeek AI. DeepSeek LLM 7B Chat. https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/ deepseek-llm-7b-chat. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Mistral 7B Instruct v0.2

    Mistral AI. Mistral 7B Instruct v0.2. https://huggingface.co/mistralai/ Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 . Accessed: 2024- 11-13

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attacks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02151, 2024

    Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, and Nico- las Flammarion. Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attacks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02151, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Arditi et. al. Refusal in Language Models is Mediated by a Single Direction.NeurIPS, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Language Models are Few-Shot Learn- ers.NeurIPS, 2020

    Tom Brown et al. Language Models are Few-Shot Learn- ers.NeurIPS, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    A review of the application of deep learning in medical image classifica- tion and segmentation.Annals of translational medicine, 2020

    Lei Cai, Jingyang Gao, and Di Zhao. A review of the application of deep learning in medical image classifica- tion and segmentation.Annals of translational medicine, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Pappas, and Eric Wong

    Patrick Chao, Alexander Robey, Edgar Dobriban, Hamed Hassani, George J. Pappas, and Eric Wong. Jail- breaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries.NeurIPS, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Chao et. al. JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Models. NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    DeepDriving: Learning Affordance for Direct Perception in Autonomous Driving.ICCV, 2015

    Chenyi Chen, Ari Seff, Alain Kornhauser, and Jianxiong Xiao. DeepDriving: Learning Affordance for Direct Perception in Autonomous Driving.ICCV, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Finding Safety Neurons in Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14144, 2024

    Jianhui Chen, Xiaozhi Wang, Zijun Yao, Yushi Bai, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. Finding Safety Neurons in Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14144, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Clark et. al. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Natural language processing (almost) from scratch.JMLR, 2011

    Ronan Collobert, Jason Weston, Léon Bottou, Michael Karlen, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Pavel Kuksa. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch.JMLR, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    DeepSeek LLM: Scal- ing Open-Source Language Models with Longtermism

    DeepSeek-AI and collaborators. DeepSeek LLM: Scal- ing Open-Source Language Models with Longtermism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02954, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Deng et. al. MASTERKEY: Automated Jailbreaking of Large Language Model Chatbots.NDSS, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidi- rectional Transformers for Language Understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidi- rectional Transformers for Language Understanding. NAACL-HLT, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Golda et. al. Privacy and Security Concerns in Gen- erative AI: A Comprehensive Survey.IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Gemma 2 27B Instruction Tuned

    Google. Gemma 2 27B Instruction Tuned. https: //huggingface.co/google/gemma-2-27b-it . Ac- cessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  10. [18]

    Gemma 2 2B Instruction Tuned

    Google. Gemma 2 2B Instruction Tuned. https: //huggingface.co/google/gemma-2-2b-it . Ac- cessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  11. [19]

    Gemma 2 9B Instruction Tuned

    Google. Gemma 2 9B Instruction Tuned. https: //huggingface.co/google/gemma-2-9b-it . Ac- cessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  12. [20]

    Gemma 3 1B Instruction Tuned

    Google. Gemma 3 1B Instruction Tuned. https: //huggingface.co/google/gemma-3-1b-it . Ac- cessed: 2024-11-13. 15

    2024

  13. [21]

    Gemma 2: Open Models Based on Gemini Research and Technology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295, 2024

    Google Research. Gemma 2: Open Models Based on Gemini Research and Technology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct

    Alibaba Group. Qwen 2.5 14B Instruct. https: //huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  15. [23]

    Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct

    Alibaba Group. Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct. https: //huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  16. [24]

    Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct

    Alibaba Group. Qwen 2.5 3B Instruct. https:// huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct. Ac- cessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  17. [25]

    Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct

    Alibaba Group. Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct. https: //huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  18. [26]

    Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

    Alibaba Group. Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct. https:// huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. Ac- cessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  19. [27]

    BadNets: Identifying Vulnerabilities in the Machine Learning Model Supply Chain.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06733, 2017

    Tianyu Gu, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt, and Siddharth Garg. BadNets: Identifying Vulnerabilities in the Machine Learning Model Supply Chain.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06733, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gradient-based Adversarial Attacks against Text Transformers.EMNLP, 2021

    Chuan Guo, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Hervé Jégou, and Douwe Kiela. Gradient-based Adversarial Attacks against Text Transformers.EMNLP, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Hugging Face

    Inc. Hugging Face. Hugging Face: The AI Community Building the Future. https://huggingface.co, n.d. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  22. [30]

    Jiang et. al. Mistral 7b.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kaggle: Your Home for Data Science

    Kaggle. Kaggle: Your Home for Data Science. https: //www.kaggle.com, n.d

  24. [32]

    Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attacks.IEEE SPW, 2024

    Daniel Kang, Xuechen Li, Ion Stoica, Carlos Guestrin, Matei Zaharia, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attacks.IEEE SPW, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    TwinBreak: Jailbreaking LLM Security Alignments based on Twin Prompts.USENIX Security, 2025

    Torsten Krauß, Hamid Dashtbani, and Alexandra Dmitrienko. TwinBreak: Jailbreaking LLM Security Alignments based on Twin Prompts.USENIX Security, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    SentencePiece: A simple and language-independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processing.EMNLP, 2018

    Taku Kudo and John Richardson. SentencePiece: A simple and language-independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processing.EMNLP, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Namhoon Lee, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, and Philip H. S. Torr. SNIP: Single-shot Network Pruning based on Connection Sensitivity.ICLR, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Backdoor Learning: A Survey.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022

    Yiming Li, Yong Jiang, Zhifeng Li, and Shu-Tao Xia. Backdoor Learning: A Survey.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models.ICLR, 2024

    Xiaogeng Liu, Nan Xu, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models.ICLR, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Liu et. al. Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05499, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Mazeika et. al. HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04249, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Llama 2 13B Chat

    Meta AI. Llama 2 13B Chat. https://huggingface. co/meta-llama/Llama-2-13b-chat-hf . Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  33. [41]

    Llama 2 70B Chat

    Meta AI. Llama 2 70B Chat. https://huggingface. co/meta-llama/Llama-2-70b-chat-hf . Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  34. [42]

    Llama 2 7B Chat

    Meta AI. Llama 2 7B Chat. https://huggingface. co/meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-chat-hf . Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  35. [43]

    Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

    Meta AI. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct. https: //huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3. 1-8B-Instruct. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  36. [44]

    Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

    Meta AI. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct. https: //huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3. 3-70B-Instruct. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  37. [45]

    Llama guard 3 8b

    Meta AI. Llama guard 3 8b. https://huggingface. co/meta-llama/Llama-Guard-3-8B . Accessed: 2025-05-08

    2025

  38. [46]

    Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answering

    Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answering. EMNLP, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    NVIDIA, Péter Vingelmann, and Frank H.P. Fitzek. Cuda, release: 10.2.89, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    GPT-4 Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2024

    OpenAI et al. GPT-4 Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Paszke et. al. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High- Performance Deep Learning Library.NeurIPS, 2019. 16

    2019

  42. [50]

    Pavlova et. al. Automated Red Teaming with GOAT: the Generative Offensive Agent Tester.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01606, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gradient Descent

    Reid Pryzant, Dan Iter, Jerry Li, Yin Lee, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. Automatic Prompt Opti- mization with “Gradient Descent” and Beam Search. EMNLP, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Qi et. al. Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Com- promises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To! ICLR, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    The Llama 3 Herd of Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    Meta AI Research. The Llama 3 Herd of Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    WinoGrande: An Adversarial Winograd Schema Challenge at Scale.AAAI, 2020

    Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhaga- vatula, and Yejin Choi. WinoGrande: An Adversarial Winograd Schema Challenge at Scale.AAAI, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Sub- word Units.ACL, 2016

    Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Sub- word Units.ACL, 2016

    2016

  48. [56]

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03825, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Souly et. al. A StrongREJECT for Empty Jailbreaks. NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    Gemma, 2024

    Gemma Team. Gemma, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Gemma 3, 2025

    Gemma Team. Gemma 3, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    Pytorch, 2022

    The Linux Foundation. Pytorch, 2022. https:// pytorch.org

    2022

  53. [61]

    Touvron et. al. LLaMA 2: Open Foundation and Fine- Tuned Chat Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam, 1995

    Guido Van Rossum and Fred L Drake Jr.Python refer- ence manual. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam, 1995

    1995

  55. [63]

    Vaswani et. al. Attention is All You Need.NeurIPS, 2017

    2017

  56. [64]

    A Simple and Effective Pruning Approach for Large Language Models.ICLR, 2024

    Authors of the Study Wanda. A Simple and Effective Pruning Approach for Large Language Models.ICLR, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Wang et. al. Neural Cleanse: Identifying and Mitigating Backdoor Attacks in Neural Networks.IEEE S&P, 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    Jail- break and Guard Aligned Language Models with Only Few In-Context Demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06387, 2023

    Zeming Wei, Yifei Wang, and Yisen Wang. Jail- break and Guard Aligned Language Models with Only Few In-Context Demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06387, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Wei et. al. Assessing the Brittleness of Safety Alignment via Pruning and Low-Rank Modifications.ICML, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Yang et. al. Qwen2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Yang et. al. Shadow Alignment: The Ease of Subvert- ing Safely-Aligned Language Models.ICLR SeT LLM, 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    NLSR: Neuron-Level Safety Realignment of Large Language Models Against Harmful Fine-Tuning.AAAI, 2025

    Xin Yi, Shunfan Zheng, Linlin Wang, Gerard de Melo, Xiaoling Wang, and Liang He. NLSR: Neuron-Level Safety Realignment of Large Language Models Against Harmful Fine-Tuning.AAAI, 2025

    2025

  63. [71]

    GPTFUZZER: Red Teaming Large Language Models with Auto-Generated Jailbreak Prompts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10253, 2023

    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

  64. [72]

    HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?ACL, 2019

    Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?ACL, 2019

    2019

  65. [73]

    How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMs.ACL ARR, 2024

    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.ACL ARR, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Understanding and Enhancing Safety Mechanisms of LLMs via Safety- Specific Neuron.ICLR, 2025

    Yiran Zhao, Wenxuan Zhang, Yuxi Xie, Anirudh Goyal, Kenji Kawaguchi, and Michael Shieh. Understanding and Enhancing Safety Mechanisms of LLMs via Safety- Specific Neuron.ICLR, 2025

    2025

  67. [75]

    𝑏𝑖𝑟𝑑" "𝑑𝑜𝑔

    Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, J. Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. Universal and Trans- ferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Mod- els.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043, 2023. Appendix 6.1 Additional Visualizations Fig. 5 shows our intuition regar...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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