Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Stop Testing Attacks, Start Diagnosing Defenses: The Four-Checkpoint Framework Reveals Where LLM Safety Breaks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LLM safety should be read as a four-checkpoint pipeline: output-stage defenses are the weakest layer, and binary metrics hide the damage.

desk verdict A genuinely useful framework and metric whose central diagnostic claim is confounded in the authors' own data; deserves peer review with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.09629 v1 pith:OI2AR2HM submitted 2026-02-10 cs.CR cs.AIcs.CYcs.ETcs.HC

Hayfa Dhahbi , Kashyap Thimmaraju This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.AIcs.CYcs.ETcs.HC
keywords LLMsafetyjailbreakingweightedattacksuccessratefour-checkpointframeworkoutput-stagedefensesevaluationpromptinjectionpartialinformationleakage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to shift LLM safety evaluation from asking which attacks succeed to asking which defensive layer fails. It proposes that a model's safety behavior is a sequential pipeline of four checkpoints—input or output stage, each with literal or intent-level detection—and designs thirteen prompt transformations that each target one checkpoint. Running those against three commercial models, it reports that binary attack success rate (22.6%) hides a 2.3x larger weighted vulnerability (52.7%) once partial information leakage is counted. It further reports that output-stage checkpoints are the weakest layer (72–79% weighted success), input-literal filtering is the strongest, and the three models break at different checkpoints. If sound, safety engineering should focus on output-stage monitoring and severity-aware evaluation rather than input keyword filters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Four-Checkpoint Framework, a 2x2 taxonomy crossing processing stage (input/output) with detection level (literal/intent), yielding CP1 through CP4. Each of thirteen evasion techniques is assigned to one checkpoint, so differing success rates across techniques are read as differences in checkpoint robustness. The supporting machinery is Weighted Attack Success Rate (WASR), which maps a four-level response classification (full refusal, partial leak, majority leak, full compliance) to weights 0, 1/3, 2/3, 1 and averages them. The framework does the work of attributing a jailbreak's success to a specific defensive layer, while WASR does the work of making partial inform

What would settle it

Run the four checkpoint classes under gated versions of the pipeline so that only one checkpoint is active at a time—for example, strip CP2-style framing from CP3/CP4 prompts, or expose an input-stage-only filter before generation. If pure Leet Speak succeeds once CP1 is removed, or if CP3/CP4 weighted success drops from roughly 80% to CP1 levels when intent framing is removed, the claim that output-stage defenses are separately weak—and the checkpoint attribution itself—would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that LLM safety is diagnosable by where it breaks: a jailbreak's effect tracks which checkpoint it targets. The Four-Checkpoint Framework turns the vague question 'is the model safe?' into four addressable questions: does input-literal filtering catch banned words, does input-intent analysis catch harmful purpose, does output-literal scanning catch bad terms in the answer, and does output-intent evaluation judge whether the answer enables harm regardless of framing. The empirical claim is that the strongest layer is CP1 (input-literal), where weighted attack success stays near 13%, and the weakest is the output stage, where CP3 and CP4 techn

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each of the thirteen techniques exercises only its assigned checkpoint, so success differences can be attributed to checkpoint strength rather than to the technique's own wording.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Severity-weighted success (WASR) should replace binary ASR in safety reporting: a model that leaks three-quarters of harmful instructions is not 'safe' just because it refused in the binary sense.
  • Output-stage defenses need the most attention: weighted success at CP3/CP4 (72–79%) is roughly six times higher than at CP1 (13%).
  • Intent-level framing (CP2) is the largest single jump in the pipeline—from 8–22% to 45–72% WASR—so strengthening input-intent analysis is a high-leverage defense.
  • Character obfuscation (leet speak, token splitting) is largely a solved attack surface: it performs at or below direct harmful prompts, so red teams can deprioritize it.
  • No single defense fits all models: GPT-5 and Gemini peak at CP3 while Claude peaks at CP4, so safety fixes should be diagnosed per model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editorially useful extension of the pipeline hypothesis: multi-turn jailbreaks should be re-described as sequences of checkpoint passes. The framework predicts that gradually escalating conversations succeed when early turns train the model to treat later harmful requests as output-stage-appropriate, connecting these measurements to the multi-turn attack literature. The paper does not test this
  • A control experiment could tighten or refute the attribution story: apply an external input-stage filter before generation and observe whether each technique's success rate changes only when its nominal checkpoint is exposed. The paper does not run that control.
  • Because the judge agreed with human labels on 91 of 100 responses and was itself one of the target models, an editorially useful next step would be a human-adjudicated audit of CP2 and CP3 categories, where the paper reports wide variance, before using checkpoint-level rankings to steer defense investment.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Four-Checkpoint Framework, a 2×2 taxonomy of LLM safety mechanisms by processing stage (input/output) and detection level (literal/intent), yielding CP1–CP4. Thirteen evasion techniques are designed, one per checkpoint category, to test each layer. The authors evaluate GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro on 3,312 single-turn black-box test cases from four benchmark datasets, using an LLM judge with a four-level response classification (full refusal, partial leak, majority leak, full compliance). They introduce Weighted Attack Success Rate (WASR), a severity-weighted average over the four levels, and report that binary ASR of 22.6% underestimates vulnerability, with WASR at 52.7%. The central claims are that output-stage defenses (CP3, CP4) are weakest at 72–79% WASR, input-literal defenses (CP1) are strongest at 13% WASR, and different models break at different checkpoints. The paper frames its contribution as shifting evaluation from 'which attacks work' to 'which defenses fail, and why'.

Significance. If the framework's diagnostic claims held, the paper would be a useful step toward localized safety evaluation: identifying which defensive layer is weakest for a given model, and motivating checkpoint-specific defenses. The empirical work has clear strengths: a reproducible pipeline with public code and data; a clean single-turn, black-box threat model; a four-level leakage taxonomy that calls attention to partial information disclosure; explicit non-determinism validation on 10% of the dataset; and a consistent model ranking (Claude > GPT-5 > Gemini) across three metrics. The finding that partial leaks dominate failures (limiting the adequacy of binary ASR) is plausible and supported by the data. However, the headline diagnostic conclusion, that output-stage defenses are the weakest layer, is not supported by the experimental design, and the paper's own caveat in §10.2 concedes this. The framework and metric are valuable as analysis tools, but the specific 'where safety breaks' claim needs an additional controlled comparison before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§10.2 and §11.1, Table 10] The central claim that 'output-stage defenses (CP3, CP4) are weakest' is confounded. §10.2 concedes: 'CP3 and CP4 prompts include CP2-style intent framing in addition to their output-stage transformations... therefore, the high success rates of CP3 and CP4 reflect the cumulative effect of bypassing both input-intent and output-stage checkpoints, not output-stage evasion alone.' The abstract and §13 nevertheless assert output-stage weaknesses as the main finding. Since CP2 alone already yields 45–72% WASR across models (Table 10), the incremental effect of the output-stage transformation is modest and unmeasured. The paper needs a control that holds intent framing constant and isolates the output-format component (e.g., CP2 framing with and without the CP3/CP4 format directives), or must explicitly reframe the conclusions as about cumulative multi-checkpoint bypass rather than isolated ou
  2. [§7.2 and §10.2] The framework assumes each technique evades only its nominated checkpoint, but this is never validated. §7.2 assigns techniques to checkpoints 'by design,' yet no test establishes that Indirect Phrasing (classified as CP1) works only via literal obfuscation rather than semantic/intent-level bypass, or that CP2 techniques do not also trigger output-stage differences. The admitted CP3/CP4 confound with CP2 is one example; without layer-exclusive probing, the claim that technique success rates can be attributed to checkpoint robustness does not follow from the data. The authors should either add a validation step (e.g., ablation or per-response analysis of which layer actually blocked or admitted the prompt) or soften the diagnostic conclusions to describe technique-family effectiveness rather than checkpoint weakness.
  3. [§9.4, Eq. (2)] The WASR weights (0, 1/3, 2/3, 1) are selected by min-max normalization of a four-level ordinal scale. The choice is defensible but not derived from an harm-severity model; the '2.3× gap' between binary ASR and WASR depends on this arbitrary mapping. The qualitative ordering (CS > CP1 > CP2 and output-stage > input-stage) also holds under binary ASR, so the main conclusions are not solely artifacts of the weights; still, the paper should report sensitivity to alternative weight schemes (e.g., progressive non-linear weights or reporting the full severity distribution alongside the single number). This would also strengthen the claim that WASR captures 'true vulnerability' beyond the chosen linearization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs Table 10] The abstract and §10.7 state 'output-stage defenses weakest at 72–79% WASR,' but Table 10 reports a wider range per model (CP3: 51–87%, CP4: 78–82%). The derived 72–79% appears to be an unstated average; specify the aggregation formula or report per-model ranges in the abstract.
  2. [§11.1, Table 10] The text says 'Claude peaked at CP4 with 79% WASR,' but Table 10 lists Claude CP4 WASR as 80%. Minor inconsistency in the summary of peak vulnerability.
  3. [§9.3.1] The LLM-as-judge validation uses 150/100 responses and reports 76.6%/91% agreement, but the disagreement analysis is only qualitative. Consider reporting Cohen's kappa or a confusion matrix for the four-level classification, especially since the classifier (Claude Sonnet 4) is also one of the target models.
  4. [§5 and §11.2] The paper repeatedly discusses 'thesis' terminology and presents the work as a master's thesis (e.g., §2.4 'Implications for This Thesis'). Choose a consistent register for a journal paper and avoid thesis-specific phrasing.
  5. [Table 4] The harm category distribution is notably imbalanced (19 prompts for Hate Speech vs. 3 for Copyright, 4 for Violence & Weapons). The paper acknowledges this, but the per-category comparisons in §10.5 should include confidence intervals or explicitly note the low statistical power for categories with fewer than 10 prompts.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Checkpoint-level conclusions are constructed from the technique-to-checkpoint assignment; the paper admits the CP3/CP4 results are confounded with CP2, so 'output-stage defenses are weakest' is an assumption relabeled as a finding.

  1. self definitional [§7.2 (Evasion Techniques) and §10.2 (Checkpoint Effectiveness)]
    "Each technique applies a specific transformation to a baseline harmful prompt, designed to evade the targeted checkpoint. By comparing model responses to the baseline versus its transformed variants, we can identify which checkpoint each transformation bypasses."

    The 'which checkpoint' step is an assumption of the design, not an observation. Techniques are pre-assigned to checkpoints in Table 2, so their success rate is then read off as the weakness of that checkpoint. The paper itself concedes in §10.2: 'CP3 and CP4 prompts include CP2-style intent framing... Therefore, the high success rates of CP3 and CP4 reflect the cumulative effect of bypassing both input-intent and output-stage checkpoints, not output-stage evasion alone.' Thus the headline 'output-stage defenses weakest at 72-79%' is not a measured property of output-stage defenses; it is the measured success of prompts labeled CP3/CP4, which also contain an input-intent component.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§10.7 (Summary of Key Findings), relying on §7.1 (Attack Implications)]
    "These findings validate the Four-Checkpoint Framework's core prediction: techniques targeting different checkpoints show different effectiveness patterns."

    The 'core prediction' is derived from the same mapping used to construct the evaluation: §7.1 states 'If safety operates as a sequential pipeline, then... (4) A technique's success depends on the targeted checkpoint's robustness.' Since the targeted checkpoint is assigned by the authors (not independently verified), the observed 'different effectiveness patterns' are a restatement of which techniques the authors placed in which cell. No control isolates a single checkpoint (CP3/CP4 are admitted to include CP2-style framing), so this validation does not test the framework; it reports the initial labeling back.

full rationale

The paper is not globally circular: WASR (52.7% vs 22.6% binary ASR), the model ranking (Claude < GPT-5 < Gemini), and the leakage-severity findings are independent empirical measurements against external benchmarks, and there is no load-bearing self-citation chain (references are prior external work such as HarmBench, JailbreakBench, MASTERKEY, SelfDefend). The circularity is localized to the framework's central diagnostic inference: 'which checkpoint fails' is identified with 'which technique label succeeded.' That inference is by construction because techniques are pre-assigned to checkpoints, and the paper's own §10.2 limitation admits CP3/CP4 prompts contain CP2-style intent framing, so the claimed weakest layer (output-stage) is not isolated. The abstract and conclusion nevertheless re-assert 'output-stage defenses (CP3, CP4) prove weakest' without the cumulative-effect caveat. This makes the framework's headline diagnostic partially circular (score 6), but not fully so: the underlying attack-success and metric comparisons are real, externally grounded observations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework leans on several unverified premises: that a sequential four-checkpoint pipeline is a faithful model of proprietary defenses; that techniques can be cleanly attributed to one checkpoint; that the LLM judge's classifications are accurate; and that single-run readings are stable. The WASR weights are a hand-set free choice that directly generates the headline 2.3× gap.

free parameters (3)
  • WASR level weights = 0, 0.33, 0.67, 1.0
    Hand-chosen linear scaling in §9.4; the 2.3× gap between WASR (52.7%) and ASR (22.6%) is a direct consequence of these weights.
  • Four-level classification thresholds = 0–3
    Response severity is discretized into four levels (§9.3.2); boundaries between partial/majority/full leak are judged by an LLM and manually validated on 100 samples.
  • 81-prompt subset = 81 of 1,879
    Manual selection with criteria including 'clear harmful intent' (§9.1.3); small per-category counts (Copyright 3, Violence 4) constrain conclusions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LLM safety mechanisms form a sequential pipeline with four separable checkpoints (CP1–CP4)
    Introduced in §6.2 and labeled 'a useful abstraction rather than a claim about internal architecture'; based on prior timing analysis (MASTERKEY) and SelfDefend's direct/intent distinction.
  • domain assumption Each evasion technique targets and only exercises its assigned checkpoint
    §7.2 maps techniques to CP1–CP4; §10.2 admits CP3/CP4 techniques include CP2-style framing, so the independence assumption is violated for output-stage tests.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-judge classifications are accurate proxies for human safety judgments
    §9.3.1 uses Claude Sonnet 4 as judge; 91% agreement with manual labels on 100 responses; judge is also a target model.
  • domain assumption Single-run evaluation is reliable because safety behavior is stable under non-determinism
    §10.6 tests 8 prompts × 10 runs (3,090 judgments), finds 91.9% within one level; this is assumed to generalize to all 3,312 test cases.
  • domain assumption The 81 manually chosen prompts adequately represent harmful-request space
    §9.1.3 reduces 1,879 public prompts to 81 for cost; category conclusions rest on as few as 3 prompts.
invented entities (2)
  • CP1–CP4 checkpoint pipeline
    purpose: Organize safety mechanisms into four independently testable layers (input/output × literal/intent) to diagnose where defenses fail.
    Paper itself calls it 'a useful abstraction rather than a claim about internal architecture' (§6.2); checkpoints are inferred from prior timing analysis and from the techniques' own target labels, and the paper offers no external falsifiable handle beyond its own evaluation.
  • Weighted Attack Success Rate (WASR)
    purpose: Quantify partial information leakage by weighting response levels 0–3 before averaging.
    The linear weights 0, 1/3, 2/3, 1 are chosen by the authors (§9.4); no independent evidence that partial leaks are exactly 1/3 or 2/3 as harmful as complete compliance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stop Testing Attacks, Start Diagnosing Defenses: The Four-Checkpoint Framework Reveals Where LLM Safety Breaks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OI2AR2HM

@misc{pith2026260209629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stop Testing Attacks, Start Diagnosing Defenses: The Four-Checkpoint Framework Reveals Where LLM Safety Breaks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OI2AR2HM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.09629}
}
abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) deploy safety mechanisms to prevent harmful outputs, yet these defenses remain vulnerable to adversarial prompts. While existing research demonstrates that jailbreak attacks succeed, it does not explain \textit{where} defenses fail or \textit{why}. To address this gap, we propose that LLM safety operates as a sequential pipeline with distinct checkpoints. We introduce the \textbf{Four-Checkpoint Framework}, which organizes safety mechanisms along two dimensions: processing stage (input vs.\ output) and detection level (literal vs.\ intent). This creates four checkpoints, CP1 through CP4, each representing a defensive layer that can be independently evaluated. We design 13 evasion techniques, each targeting a specific checkpoint, enabling controlled testing of individual defensive layers. Using this framework, we evaluate GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro across 3,312 single-turn, black-box test cases. We employ an LLM-as-judge approach for response classification and introduce Weighted Attack Success Rate (WASR), a severity-adjusted metric that captures partial information leakage overlooked by binary evaluation. Our evaluation reveals clear patterns. Traditional Binary ASR reports 22.6\% attack success. However, WASR reveals 52.7\%, a 2.3$\times$ higher vulnerability. Output-stage defenses (CP3, CP4) prove weakest at 72--79\% WASR, while input-literal defenses (CP1) are strongest at 13\% WASR. Claude achieves the strongest safety (42.8\% WASR), followed by GPT-5 (55.9\%) and Gemini (59.5\%). These findings suggest that current defenses are strongest at input-literal checkpoints but remain vulnerable to intent-level manipulation and output-stage techniques. The Four-Checkpoint Framework provides a structured approach for identifying and addressing safety vulnerabilities in deployed systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of model responses in Normal vs. Jail [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Output filtering architectures. (A) Partial detection monitors tokens during generation and can early-stop harmful [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The LLM Safety Pipeline. Safety mechanisms are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CP2 Research Framing transformation. The harm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CP3 Pseudocode Format transformation. Informa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CP4 Detection Framing transformation. The ques [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Checkpoint effectiveness by model. ASR increases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Leak severity distribution by model (left) and check [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Response classification distribution by model and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Baseline prompt M03 transformed with four different techniques produces four classification levels on Claude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Category vulnerability by model. Left: Binary ASR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Non-determinism validation across 8 prompts (10% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, and Nicolas Flammarion. 2024. Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attacks. arXiv:2404.02151 [cs.CR] arXiv preprint

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Anthropic. 2025. Claude. https://claude.ai. Accessed: 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Arcanum Security. 2024. GitHub - Arcanum-Sec/arc_pi_taxonomy: The Ar- canum Prompt Injection Taxonomy. https://github.com/Arcanum-Sec/arc_pi_ taxonomy GitHub Repository

    2024

  4. [4]

    Deterministic

    Berk Atil, Sarp Aykent, Alexa Chittams, Lisheng Fu, Rebecca J. Passonneau, Evan Radcliffe, Guru Rajan Rajagopal, Adam Sloan, Tomasz Tudrej, Ferhan Ture, Zhe Wu, Lixinyu Xu, and Breck Baldwin. 2025. Non-Determinism of “Deterministic” LLM Settings. arXiv:2408.04667 [cs.CL] arXiv preprint

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, et al . 2022. Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback. arXiv:2212.08073 [cs.CL] arXiv preprint

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D. Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., Virtual Conference, 1877–1901

    2020

  7. [7]

    Pappas, Florian Tramèr, Hamed Hassani, and Eric Wong

    Patrick Chao, Edoardo Debenedetti, Alexander Robey, Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, Vikash Sehwag, Edgar Dobriban, Nicolas Flammarion, George J. Pappas, Florian Tramèr, Hamed Hassani, and Eric Wong. 2024. JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. ...

    2024

  8. [8]

    Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, et al. 2025. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261N/A, N/A (2025), 1–73. arXiv:2507.06261 [cs.CL] Technical Report

    arXiv 2025

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Gelei Deng, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Kailong Wang, Ying Zhang, Zefeng Li, Haoyu Wang, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. 2024. MASTERKEY: Automated Jailbreaking of Large Language Model Chatbots. InProceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS). Internet Socie...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Google. 2025. Gemini. https://gemini.google.com. Accessed: 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Google for Developers. 2025. Numerical data: Normalization | Machine Learn- ing. Online. https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/crash-course/ numerical-data/normalization

    2025

  4. [12]

    Hakan Inan, Kartikeya Upasani, Jianfeng Chi, Rashi Rungta, Krithika Iyer, Yuning Mao, Michael Tontchev, Qing Hu, Brian Fuller, Davide Testuggine, and Madian Khabsa. 2023. Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations. arXiv:2312.06674 [cs.CL] Meta AI...

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Daniel Kang, Xuechen Li, Ion Stoica, Carlos Guestrin, Matei Zaharia, and Tat- sunori Hashimoto. 2023. Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attacks. arXiv:2302.05733 [cs.CR] arXiv preprint. 16 Stop Testing Attacks, Start Diagnosing Defens...

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Yang Li, Qiang Sheng, Yehan Yang, Xueyao Zhang, and Juan Cao. 2025. From Judgment to Interference: Early Stopping LLM Harmful Outputs via Streaming Content Monitoring. arXiv:2506.09996 [cs.CL] arXiv preprint

    2025

  7. [15]

    Mantas Mazeika, Long Phan, Xuwang Yin, Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Norman Mu, Elham Sakhaee, Nathaniel Li, Steven Basart, Bo Li, David Forsyth, and Dan Hendrycks. 2024. HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Auto- mated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal. InProceedings of th...

    2024

  8. [16]

    OpenAI. 2025. ChatGPT. https://chat.openai.com. Accessed: 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al

  10. [18]

    Mark Russinovich, Ahmed Salem, and Ronen Eldan. 2024. Great, Now Write an Article About That: The Crescendo Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak Attack. arXiv:2404.01833 [cs.CR] Microsoft Research Technical Report

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units. InProceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Be...

    2016

  12. [20]

    Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, Yun Shen, and Yang Zhang

  13. [21]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention Is All You Need. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc., Long Beach, CA, USA, 5998–6008

    2017

  14. [22]

    Xunguang Wang, Daoyuan Wu, Zhenlan Ji, Zongjie Li, Pingchuan Ma, and Shuai Wang. 2024. SelfDefend: LLMs Can Defend Themselves against Jailbreaking in a Practical Manner. arXiv:2406.05498 [cs.CR] arXiv preprint

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Yuxia Wang, Haonan Li, Xudong Han, Preslav Nakov, and Timothy Baldwin

  16. [24]

    Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2023. Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 36. Curran Associates, Inc., New Orleans, LA, USA, 80079–80110

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sibo Yi, Yule Liu, Zhen Sun, Tian-Shi Chua, Tat-Seng Lam, and Yang Liu. 2024. Jailbreak Attacks and Defenses Against Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv:2407.04295 [cs.CR] arXiv preprint (Survey paper)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson

    Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Milad Nasr, J. Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. 2023. Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models. InICML 2023 Workshop on Adversarial Machine Learning. PMLR, Honolulu, HI, USA, 1–19. 17

    2023

  19. [2022]

    In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 35. Curran Associates, Inc., New Orleans, LA, USA, 27730–27744

  20. [2023]

    InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023

    Do-Not-Answer: A Dataset for Evaluating Safeguards in LLMs. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore, 896–911

    2023

  21. [2024]

    Do Anything Now

    “Do Anything Now”: Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). ACM, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 4701–4715. doi:10.1145/3658644.3670388

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.