arxiv: 2510.20129 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-23 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.AI

SAID: Safety-Aware Intent Defense via Prefix Probing for Large Language Models

Yulong Chen , Qi Zhang , Jiawen Zhang , Yadong Liu , Mu Li , Jie Wen , Yong Xu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 05:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.AI

keywords jailbreak defenselarge language modelsintent probingsafety prefixtraining-free defenseblack-box defenseLLM safety

0 comments

The pith

SAID defends LLMs from jailbreaks by distilling inputs to core intents then probing them with safety prefixes.

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

The paper presents Safety-Aware Intent Defense (SAID) as a way to stop jailbreak attacks on large language models without training the model or changing how it generates text. The method works by letting the model turn a user's possibly tricky prompt into a few clear core intents. It then adds a safety prefix to each intent to check whether the model would produce a harmful response. If any intent fails the check, the original request is rejected. Tests on four open-source models facing six common jailbreak attacks show the approach reduces unsafe outputs while keeping normal task performance close to the undefended model.

Core claim

SAID first distills potentially obfuscated user inputs into concise core intents using the target model itself. It then applies a validated safety prefix to probe each distilled intent and elicit the model's safety-aware response. Finally, a conservative aggregation rule rejects the original request if any distilled intent is identified as unsafe. This design enables black-box-compatible defense without updating model parameters or modifying the decoding process.

What carries the argument

Self-distillation of user inputs into core intents followed by safety-prefix probing and conservative aggregation to decide rejection.

If this is right

SAID runs on any LLM that accepts prompts, without needing internal weights or extra guard models.
It cuts harmful responses across multiple jailbreak attack types while keeping utility on ordinary tasks.
The defense adds only the cost of a few extra forward passes and avoids any training or decoding changes.
Experiments confirm the method outperforms prior external-filter or auxiliary-model defenses on the tested models and attacks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same distillation-plus-probe pattern could be tried on other adversarial input types such as prompt injection or data poisoning.
Because the method depends on the model's own distillation accuracy, its performance may vary when applied to weaker or differently aligned models.
Extending the safety prefix to multi-turn conversations might address safety risks that evolve across several exchanges.

Load-bearing premise

The target LLM can reliably turn obfuscated or tricky user inputs into short core intents that keep every safety-relevant detail without omitting or adding anything critical.

What would settle it

A jailbreak prompt where the model's own distillation step produces an intent that drops the harmful element, so the safety probe accepts it and the system lets the attack through.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.20129 by Jiawen Zhang, Jie Wen, Mu Li, Qi Zhang, Yadong Liu, Yong Xu, Yulong Chen.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Comparative defenses against the DeepInception attacks. Large Language Models (LLMs) have brought transformative advances across a wide range of domains, showcasing strong capabilities in natural language understanding, generation, and reasoning (Kaplan et al., 2020; Achiam et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2023; Chang et al., 2024a). As their influence continues to grow, LLMs are poised to reshape everything f… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of the Self-Activating Internal Defense (SAID) framework. SAID operates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Observations on the Guanaco model regarding changes in KL divergence (compared to the original output) and safety capabilities. This stage serves as a pivotal link in the SAID framework, enabling the model to surface its internal safety alignment through a controlled intervention. We posit that a prefix can act as an instrumental variable to shift the model’s latent state from “utility-focused” to “sa… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of defense success (orange) and normal task success (blue) across different prefix interaction frames on the Guanaco model. Results are normalized using the No Defense condition as baseline. In terms of efficiency, ATGR serves as a fairer metric than raw output time per query. For example, overly defensive methods often produce shorter outputs and thus appear faster. This is illustrated by t… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Ablation studies of the SAID framework. (a) shows SAID’s defense performance across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The full experiments about the prefix part on Guanaco model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Part of prefix analysis results on Vicuna-7B model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Part of prefix analysis results on Llama2-7B model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks, where adversarially crafted prompts induce policy-violating responses despite safety alignment. Existing defenses typically improve safety through external filtering, auxiliary guardrails, or decoding-time control. However, these interventions often reduce practical deployability because they may require additional model access, introduce extra inference cost, or affect benign-task utility. In this paper, we propose Safety-Aware Intent Defense (SAID), a training-free jailbreak defense framework based on intent-level safety probing. SAID first distills potentially obfuscated user inputs into concise core intents using the target model itself. It then applies a validated safety prefix to probe each distilled intent and elicit the model's safety-aware response. Finally, a conservative aggregation rule rejects the original request if any distilled intent is identified as unsafe. This design enables black-box-compatible defense without updating model parameters or modifying the decoding process. Experiments on four open-source LLMs under six representative jailbreak attacks show that SAID achieves state-of-the-art defense performance in reducing harmful responses while maintaining competitive utility on benign tasks. Further analyses on prefix variants, hierarchical distillation, and inference efficiency demonstrate that SAID provides a practical safety-utility trade-off for securing LLMs against jailbreak threats.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

SAID gives a training-free black-box defense via intent distillation plus safety-prefix probing, but the results hinge on whether the model itself can pull safety-relevant details out of obfuscated jailbreaks.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper describes a simple pipeline: the target LLM distills a user prompt into concise intents, each gets probed with a safety prefix, and the request is rejected if any intent triggers an unsafe response. It stays training-free and black-box, which is the practical hook for deployment where extra guardrails add latency or cost. Experiments on four open-source models against six jailbreak attacks claim better safety-utility balance than prior methods, and the conservative aggregation rule makes sense as a way to bias toward rejection. That combination of self-distillation and prefix probing is the concrete new element, even if pieces like intent extraction and prefix checks have shown up before. The authors also look at prefix variants and inference cost, which adds some useful analysis. The approach is straightforward enough that it could be tried quickly in practice. The soft spot is the distillation step itself. Jailbreaks rely on indirect framing and role-play to dodge direct triggers, so if the model summarizes an adversarial prompt into something that looks harmless, the probe never sees the violation and the rejection rule has nothing to work with. The abstract gives no numbers on how often this happens or how utility was scored on benign tasks, and there are no baseline comparisons or significance tests visible. That makes the SOTA claim hard to evaluate from what is shown. This is for people who need a lightweight defense they can add without retraining or white-box access. Readers focused on empirical safety techniques for production LLMs would get value from the pipeline and the efficiency checks. It deserves a serious referee because the idea is deployable and the experiments cover multiple models and attacks, even if the write-up needs more detail on the critical assumption and full metrics. I would send it for review rather than desk reject, with the main request being clearer evidence that distillation preserves safety signals under the tested attacks.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Safety-Aware Intent Defense (SAID), a training-free, black-box jailbreak defense for LLMs. SAID distills potentially obfuscated user inputs into concise core intents using the target model itself, applies a validated safety prefix to probe each distilled intent for safety-aware responses, and uses a conservative aggregation rule to reject the original request if any distilled intent is flagged as unsafe. Experiments on four open-source LLMs under six representative jailbreak attacks are reported to achieve state-of-the-art defense performance in reducing harmful responses while maintaining competitive utility on benign tasks, with additional analyses on prefix variants, hierarchical distillation, and inference efficiency.

Significance. If the empirical results hold under rigorous validation, SAID offers a practical deployable defense that avoids external filters, auxiliary models, or decoding modifications, providing a favorable safety-utility trade-off for black-box LLM settings. The training-free and black-box-compatible design is a strength for real-world applicability.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (SAID pipeline description): The central assumption that the target LLM can reliably distill adversarially obfuscated inputs (e.g., role-play, encoding, or indirect framing from the six attacks) into concise core intents while preserving all safety-relevant information is load-bearing but unvalidated. If distillation omits or benignly rephrases violation elements, the subsequent safety-prefix probe and aggregation rule cannot trigger rejection; this must be directly tested by comparing safety detection rates on original vs. distilled versions of the attack prompts.
[Experiments] Experimental results section: The claim of state-of-the-art defense performance is asserted without quantitative metrics, baseline comparisons (e.g., to self-reminder or other prefix-based defenses), attack success rate reductions, or utility measurements (e.g., on benign QA or standard benchmarks) with statistical details. These are required to substantiate the central empirical claim and allow assessment of whether post-hoc metric choices affect the reported superiority.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The mention of 'further analyses on prefix variants, hierarchical distillation, and inference efficiency' should include a brief summary or pointer to the relevant subsection to improve completeness for readers.
[§3] Notation: Clarify whether the safety prefix is fixed across models or tuned per LLM, and specify the exact aggregation rule (e.g., any-unsafe or majority) with pseudocode for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (SAID pipeline description): The central assumption that the target LLM can reliably distill adversarially obfuscated inputs (e.g., role-play, encoding, or indirect framing from the six attacks) into concise core intents while preserving all safety-relevant information is load-bearing but unvalidated. If distillation omits or benignly rephrases violation elements, the subsequent safety-prefix probe and aggregation rule cannot trigger rejection; this must be directly tested by comparing safety detection rates on original vs. distilled versions of the attack prompts.

Authors: We agree that the distillation step's fidelity in preserving safety-relevant information is a critical assumption. While the overall defense results indicate that SAID effectively handles obfuscated inputs, we will strengthen the manuscript by adding a direct validation. In the revised version, we will include a comparison of safety detection rates (fraction of prompts flagged as unsafe by the safety-prefix probe) between the original attack prompts and their distilled intents, across the six attacks and four models. This will explicitly test whether distillation preserves violation elements sufficiently for the aggregation rule to trigger rejection. revision: yes
Referee: [Experiments] Experimental results section: The claim of state-of-the-art defense performance is asserted without quantitative metrics, baseline comparisons (e.g., to self-reminder or other prefix-based defenses), attack success rate reductions, or utility measurements (e.g., on benign QA or standard benchmarks) with statistical details. These are required to substantiate the central empirical claim and allow assessment of whether post-hoc metric choices affect the reported superiority.

Authors: We acknowledge that the experimental section would benefit from more explicit quantitative details to support the SOTA claim. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the results to include: detailed tables reporting attack success rates (ASR) and reductions for SAID versus baselines including self-reminder and other prefix-based defenses; utility metrics on benign tasks such as standard QA benchmarks; and statistical details including means and standard deviations over multiple runs. This will enable a clearer evaluation of the safety-utility trade-off and the robustness of the reported superiority. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical defense procedure with independent experimental validation

full rationale

The paper describes a training-free empirical defense pipeline (intent distillation via target LLM prompting, safety-prefix probing, and conservative aggregation) evaluated on four LLMs against six jailbreak attacks. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivation chain exist that reduce claimed performance to quantities defined from the same evaluation data. No self-citations to prior work by these authors are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The method is self-contained against external benchmarks (attack success rates and benign utility metrics), satisfying the criteria for a non-circular finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unverified assumption that the target model can perform accurate intent distillation for safety purposes and that a single validated safety prefix generalizes across intents and attacks.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The target LLM can distill obfuscated inputs into concise core intents that preserve safety-relevant semantics.
Invoked in the first step of SAID; if false the probing step operates on distorted inputs.
domain assumption A fixed safety prefix elicits reliable safety-aware responses from the model for any distilled intent.
Central to the probing step; the paper states the prefix is validated but does not detail the validation process in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5768 in / 1358 out tokens · 31504 ms · 2026-05-18T05:18:54.360267+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

SAID first distills potentially obfuscated user inputs into concise core intents using the target model itself. It then applies a validated safety prefix to probe each distilled intent...
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean J_uniquely_calibrated_via_higher_derivative unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We measure the effect of this intervention using the Safety Compliance Probability S(x) ... constrained optimization problem

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

[1]

GPT-4 Technical Report

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Ale- man, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[2]

Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexity

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[3]

Efficient Training of Language Models to Fill in the Middle

Mohammad Bavarian, Heewoo Jun, Nikolas Tezak, John Schulman, Christine McLeavey, Jerry Tworek, and Mark Chen. Efficient training of language models to fill in the middle.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.14255,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[4]

On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? InProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp

Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? InProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp. 610–623,

work page 2021
[5]

Single-pass detection of jailbreaking input in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15435,

Leyla Naz Candogan, Yongtao Wu, Elias Abad Rocamora, Grigorios G Chrysos, and V olkan Cevher. Single-pass detection of jailbreaking input in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15435,

work page arXiv
[6]

A survey on evaluation of large language models.ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology, 15(3):1–45, 2024a

Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models.ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology, 15(3):1–45, 2024a. Zhiyuan Chang, Mingyang Li, Yi Liu, Junjie Wang, Qing Wang, and Yang Liu. Play guessing game with llm: Ind...

work page 2024
[7]

Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality.See https://vicuna

Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Ziqing Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality.See https://vicuna. lmsys. org (accessed 14 April 2023), 2(3):6,

work page 2023
[8]

Attack prompt generation for red teaming and defending large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12505,

Boyi Deng, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Yang Deng, Qifan Wang, and Xiangnan He. Attack prompt generation for red teaming and defending large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12505,

work page arXiv
[9]

Shaping the safety boundaries: Understanding and defending against jailbreaks in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17034,

10 Lang Gao, Jiahui Geng, Xiangliang Zhang, Preslav Nakov, and Xiuying Chen. Shaping the safety boundaries: Understanding and defending against jailbreaks in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17034,

work page arXiv
[10]

Chatglm-rlhf: Practices of aligning large language models with human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00934,

Zhenyu Hou, Yilin Niu, Zhengxiao Du, Xiaohan Zhang, Xiao Liu, Aohan Zeng, Qinkai Zheng, Minlie Huang, Hongning Wang, Jie Tang, et al. Chatglm-rlhf: Practices of aligning large language models with human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00934,

work page arXiv
[11]

Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Models

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[12]

Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001
[13]

Deepinception: Hypnotize large language model to be jailbreaker.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03191,

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,

work page arXiv
[14]

Uncovering Logit Suppression Vulnerabilities in LLM Safety Alignment

Yuxi Li, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Ling Shi, Gelei Deng, Shengquan Chen, and Kailong Wang. Lockpicking llms: A logit-based jailbreak using token-level manipulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13068,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[15]

The unlocking spell on base llms: Rethinking alignment via in-context learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01552,

Bill Yuchen Lin, Abhilasha Ravichander, Ximing Lu, Nouha Dziri, Melanie Sclar, Khyathi Chandu, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. The unlocking spell on base llms: Rethinking alignment via in-context learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01552,

work page arXiv
[16]

AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models

Tong Liu, Yingjie Zhang, Zhe Zhao, Yinpeng Dong, Guozhu Meng, and Kai Chen. Making them ask and answer: Jailbreaking large language models in few queries via disguise and reconstruction. In33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24), pp. 4711–4728, 2024a. Xiaogeng Liu, Nan Xu, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak pr...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[17]

Flipattack: Jailbreak llms via flipping.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02832, 2024b

Yue Liu, Xiaoxin He, Miao Xiong, Jinlan Fu, Shumin Deng, and Bryan Hooi. Flipattack: Jailbreak llms via flipping.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02832, 2024b. 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 arX...

work page arXiv
[18]

Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[19]

Jailbreak and guard aligned language models with only few in-context demonstrations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06387,

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,

work page arXiv
[20]

Beyond surface-level pat- terns: An essence-driven defense framework against jailbreak attacks in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19041,

Shiyu Xiang, Ansen Zhang, Yanfei Cao, Yang Fan, and Ronghao Chen. Beyond surface-level pat- terns: An essence-driven defense framework against jailbreak attacks in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19041,

work page arXiv
[21]

Aligning large language models via fine-grained supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02756, 2024a

Dehong Xu, Liang Qiu, Minseok Kim, Faisal Ladhak, and Jaeyoung Do. Aligning large language models via fine-grained supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02756, 2024a. Zhangchen Xu, Fengqing Jiang, Luyao Niu, Jinyuan Jia, Bill Yuchen Lin, and Radha Poovendran. Safedecoding: Defending against jailbreak attacks via safety-aware decoding. InProceedings of the...

work page arXiv
[22]

Sql injection jailbreak: A structural disaster of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01565,

Jiawei Zhao, Kejiang Chen, Weiming Zhang, and Nenghai Yu. Sql injection jailbreak: A structural disaster of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01565,

work page arXiv
[23]

A Survey of Large Language Models

Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. A survey of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 1(2),

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[24]

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,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[25]

comment- ing out

12 APPENDIXOVERVIEW We provide an overview of the Appendix below: •Appendix A: Supplementary Details on Experimental Setup.Descriptions of the jail- break attack methods (GCG, AutoDAN, PAIR, DeepInception, SAP30, SIJ) and baseline defenses used in our experiments. •Appendix B: Definitions of Evaluation Metrics.Formal definitions of DS, NTS, and ATGR metri...

work page 2023
[26]

Can I”, significantly outperform prefixes that carry a strong personal or instructional intent, like “Can you teach me to do this to others:

Given that the generation process of Large Language Models (LLMs) is typically autoregressive, this leads to increasing confusion when the models generate numerical content. They often fail to accurately locate the position of the output terminator, resulting in low- quality generated content. This phenomenon is also observed in practical applications of ...

work page 2025
[27]

role-playing

Notably, our proposed defense method SAID demonstrated superior efficacy in mitigating six distinct jailbreak attacks. It achieved an exceptionally low average harmful score of 1.03, effectively neutralizing adversarial inputs with near-complete success. This highlights the robustness of the defense, particularly in its ability to thwart a wide range of a...

work page 2025