Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 96 references

SoK: Intent-Oriented Systematization of Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreaks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multi-turn jailbreak effectiveness is driven by how harmful intent is organized across the trajectory, not by the volume of accumulated context.

desk verdict The intent-oriented taxonomy is a real contribution and the empirical work is largely honest, but the headline 'organization not volume' claim is stronger than the controls actually support. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01117 v1 pith:CUCSORJ2 submitted 2026-08-02 cs.CR

Siyuan Li , Aodu Wulianghai , Zehao Liu , Xi Lin , Qinghua Mao , Haoyu Li , Xiang Chen , Siyuan Liang
show 3 more authors
Jun Wu Jianhua Li Dacheng Tao
This is my paper
classification cs.CR
keywords multi-turnjailbreakLLMsafetyintentorganizationtaxonomyattackeffectivenessdetectionsurfacecontrolledablationdialogueescalation
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 tries to establish that multi-turn LLM jailbreaks succeed because of how harmful intent is arranged across turns, not because the conversation grows longer. The authors build a four-category taxonomy based on which part of the interaction the adversary uses to organize intent: the query content, the attack strategy, the branching of conversation trajectories, or the splitting of the objective across sessions. Controlled experiments on the first two categories show that when context volume is held roughly fixed, changing only the ordering of intent changes attack success dramatically. The paper further argues that where intent is organized determines at what scope it becomes detectable—turn, session, or cross-session—so single-turn safety checks are structurally insufficient. If correct, the findings redirect evaluation and defense design toward interaction-level monitoring.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intent-organization axis: a single classification axis derived from a formal interaction loop in which an attacker maintains a strategy variable, a query policy, a trajectory history, and a shared state, and each of the four attack categories leaves free exactly one of those objects to organize harmful intent. The controlled ablations that carry the argument are the comparisons between Persistence and FITD on four target models, and Ordered versus Repeated versus Shuffled auxiliary-question sequences on seven models, which hold context volume approximately fixed while varying only how the intent is sequenced.

What would settle it

Re-run the MRCJ comparison with a shuffled condition that is an exact permutation of the ordered utterance set (same sentences, same token count, only order changed) across all seven target models; if the ordered advantage disappears on several models, the central claim fails. Likewise, match the FITD Persistence condition turn-for-turn with FITD escalation (identical turn counts and lengths, no escalation content) and check whether the ASR gap shrinks to zero.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the organization of harmful intent across an interaction, not its accumulation, drives both attack effectiveness and detectability. In formal terms, all multi-turn jailbreaks are specializations of a single interaction loop, and they differ only in which object carries the intent: the query policy (dialogue-escalation), the strategy update (strategy-refinement), the branching of trajectories (trajectory-branching), or the decomposition of the target across sessions (session-splitting). The ablation evidence is two controlled comparisons: FITD-style escalation decisively outperforms direct attacks and repeated persistence with comparable length; and ordered auxil

Load-bearing premise

The organization-versus-accumulation conclusion stands on the Persistence and Repeated/Shuffled conditions genuinely holding context volume and query count fixed while varying only the arrangement of intent; if those conditions covertly change turn counts or query diversity, the central claim is confounded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Evaluations of multi-turn safety should report not just success rate and interaction length but the structure of how intent is sequenced.
  • Turn-local safety filters cannot stop these attacks because intent is invisible at single-turn scope; monitors must operate on full sessions and cross-session links.
  • The taxonomy gives a detection-surface map: DEA and SRA demand session-level observation, TBA demands joint analysis of branches, and SSA demands cross-session aggregation.
  • Escalation design should be tuned to target robustness: uniform pacing is a strong default, but strong models reward a flattened early phase with a concentrated final jump.
  • For strategy-refinement attacks, moving from fixed schedules to adaptive optimization to agent-based planning yields real effectiveness gains, with the largest gains appearing against the strongest defenses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the authors do not take is to measure intent coherence directly—for instance, a trajectory-level score of how strongly successive turns move toward one harmful objective—and test it as a detection feature.
  • The same intent-organization axis likely applies to other long-horizon agentic threats such as multi-step prompt injection or staged data exfiltration, where no single step is malicious.
  • The experimental gap for trajectory-branching and session-splitting attacks could be closed by a benchmark that fixes the same target objective across all four categories and then compares detection at turn, session, branch, and cross-session scopes.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This SoK paper proposes an intent-oriented taxonomy of multi-turn LLM jailbreaks. It formalizes the interaction as a loop among attacker, victim, and judge (Algorithm 1) and classifies attacks into four categories — Dialogue-escalation (DEA), Strategy-refinement (SRA), Trajectory-branching (TBA), and Session-splitting (SSA) — according to which formal object the adversary uses to organize harmful intent. The empirical section performs controlled ablations on representative DEA/SRA implementations and claims that effectiveness is driven by deliberate organization of intent rather than by context volume or query count; that escalation shape should adapt to target robustness; that amplification components such as semantic pathways and reasoning chains contribute independently and complementarily; and that SRA sub-paradigms form a genuine capability hierarchy. The paper concludes that turn-local defenses are structurally insufficient and that evaluation should be aligned with the detection surface at which intent becomes observable.

Significance. If the central finding holds, the paper provides a useful reorientation for the field: evaluation and defense should reason over trajectory structure rather than interaction length or single turns. The taxonomy and the formal interaction model are valuable organizing devices, and the paper ships code, which is a concrete strength. The empirical work is not circular: it tests the taxonomy-derived hypotheses through ablations rather than fitting parameters to confirm the taxonomy. However, the strongest empirical claim — that organization, not accumulated context, determines effectiveness — is currently over-supported by the reported experiments, and one ablation claiming single-component isolation changes multiple components at once. With appropriate weakening of the claims and additional controls, the contribution would be solid.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 / Table 4 / Appendix A.5] Finding 1's 'not by volume' claim rests on the FITD-side Persistence control, but this control does not isolate volume from organization. Persistence retries the same request after refusals, so every added unit of context is a prior refusal; refusal inertia alone could explain its low ASR, independent of organization. Appendix A.5 reports only a shared turn budget of 10, not exact turn/token counts or termination criteria, and the text's 'comparable length' is not an exact match. There is also no condition that adds neutral context volume while keeping organization fixed. The MRCJ Repeated condition similarly reuses low-malice turns, changing query diversity; the Ordered-vs-Shuffled contrast is cleaner, but it shows only that order matters at fixed turn count, not that volume does not. The authors themselves note in §3.1 that prior work leaves this confound unresolved; the same caveat ap
  2. [Tables 5–7] The text states that Ordered achieves the strongest ASR across all models, but this is false for Mistral: Ordered and Shuffled both reach final ASR 1.000, relative ASR gain 0.32 vs 0.32, and harmful score 4.64 vs 4.64. The cross-model generalization should be qualified, and the discussion should identify which pairwise comparisons actually differ.
  3. [§4.5 / Table 16] The RQ4 ablation is described as varying one strategy-refinement component at a time, but Table 16 changes three components between A1 and A2 (plan pool, selection mechanism, attacker model class) and two components between A2 and A3 (selection mechanism and attacker model class). Consequently, the monotonic ASR increase in Table 11 cannot be attributed to a single sub-paradigm transition. Either add intermediate conditions to isolate each component or reframe Finding 4 as evidence for a composite progression.
  4. [§4.2–§4.5 / Tables 4–11] All empirical comparisons are reported as point ASRs without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several differences are small (e.g., Table 4 Persistence vs Direct on DeepSeek; Table 5 Mistral tie), and the paper makes strong 'primary driver' and 'genuine hierarchy' claims. At minimum, per-target bootstrap intervals or paired comparisons across random seeds are needed to establish that the reported gaps are not noise.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A.2 / Table 14] The MRCJ target-model list omits Vicuna-7b, although Tables 5–10 include results for Vicuna-7b; add it or explicitly explain the exclusion.
  2. [§4.1] The sentence 'we systematize them analytically in Subsection 2.3' is incorrect: the analytical treatment of TBA and SSA appears in §3.3–3.4, not §2.3.
  3. [§2.3] 'Specialization of Algorithm Algorithm 1' contains a duplicated word; should be 'Algorithm 1'.
  4. [References] References [34] and [71] appear to be the same paper (Yi et al., 'Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey', arXiv:2407.04295). Please deduplicate.
  5. [Tables 8–9] The captions state that colors progress from low to high, but the colors are not visible in monochrome print or in the provided text; use explicit arrows, numeric markers, or hatch patterns.
  6. [§4.2] The Persistence condition is described as having 'comparable length to the Escalation condition', but the condition is named FITD elsewhere; unify the terminology to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical ablations are not fitted to their conclusions, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical and benchmarked against external implementations. RQ1 contrasts FITD vs. Persistence and MRCJ Ordered/Repeated/Shuffled to separate organization from accumulation; RQ2 ablates ActorAttack components; RQ3 varies MRCJ escalation profiles; RQ4 ablates an X-Teaming backbone. None of these conditions fits a parameter to the outcome it later 'predicts'; the compared conditions are pre-defined interaction strategies, so there is no self-definitional or fitted-input circularity. The taxonomy is a classification constructed from the general loop in §2.1 and then used to organize methods; it is a conceptual restructuring rather than a derivation of the empirical findings. The self-citations ([68] Honeytrap, [84] CoopGuard, [77] ICON) appear as examples in the survey/taxonomy and are not load-bearing for Findings 1-4. The paper candidly notes in §3.1 that prior DEA studies leave organization and length entangled; its own FITD control reports only a shared turn budget of 10 in Appendix A.5, so exact length matching is unverified. That is a validity/control concern, not circularity, because the conclusion is not forced by definition or by a fitted parameter. Score 0.

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

The central empirical claims depend on experimental controls and a judge model rather than fitted parameters. The taxonomy categories are classification labels, not invented physical entities. The axioms above are the main premises that, if violated, would undermine the conclusions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The four-category taxonomy (DEA, SRA, TBA, SSA) is exhaustive: every existing multi-turn jailbreak organizes harmful intent through exactly one of the four objects and trivializes the rest.
    Section 2.3, Table 1. If a method organizes intent through multiple objects simultaneously, the taxonomy is not a partition and the detection-surface progression derived from it (§5) may not hold.
  • domain assumption The GPT-4o judge's 1-to-5 harmfulness score with threshold >=4 is a valid and unbiased measure of jailbreak success.
    Appendix A.4. All ASR conclusions depend on this measure, and GPT-4o also appears as a target model, creating a potential judge-target interaction that is not analyzed.
  • ad hoc to paper The Persistence (FITD) and Repeated/Shuffled (MRCJ) conditions are adequate controls that isolate intent organization from context volume.
    Section 4.2. The FITD text says Persistence has 'comparable length' without exact turn matching; the MRCJ Repeated condition reuses low-malice turns, changing query diversity. The central claim depends on these controls being faithful.
  • domain assumption Defender observation scope (turn, session, cross-session) is the binding constraint for detection; no other defense mechanism (e.g., semantic classifiers on full text) is considered.
    Section 2.2 and Discussion. The claim that turn-local mechanisms are 'structurally insufficient' assumes the only relevant dimension is observation scope, excluding other defense designs that might be turn-local yet still effective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SoK: Intent-Oriented Systematization of Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreaks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CUCSORJ2

@misc{pith2026260801117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SoK: Intent-Oriented Systematization of Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreaks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CUCSORJ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01117}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in interactive settings, where user intent commonly unfolds through multi-turn dialogue. Multi-turn jailbreaks exploit this pattern by advancing a harmful intent across turns, so that no single message exposes the full objective. However, existing work treats these attacks as a loose collection of prompt patterns and does not analyze how the adversary organizes and advances harmful intent across an interaction. We develop a four-part, intent-oriented taxonomy that organizes multi-turn jailbreaks by adversarial intent structure. Through controlled ablations, we find that effectiveness is driven by how deliberately intent is organized across turns rather than by context length or query count. We further show that the way intent is organized determines the level at which it becomes detectable, pushing the required detection surface outward from the turn level to the session level to the cross-session level. These findings indicate that turn-local safety mechanisms are structurally insufficient and that single-point evaluation overlooks how intent is organized, motivating evaluation protocols aligned to the level at which harmful intent becomes observable. The code is available at: https://github.com/SiyuanLi00/INTACT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01117 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of multi-turn jailbreak. Panel (a) illustrates the interaction loop among the attacker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ablation study of two key aspects of ActorAttack. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,

    L. Ouyanget al., “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interac- tive memory,

    D. Wu, H. Wang, W. Yu, Y . Zhang, K.-W. Chang, and D. Yu, “Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interac- tive memory,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10813, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Evaluating llm-based agents for multi-turn conversations: A survey,

    S. Guan, J. Wang, J. Bian, B. Zhu, J.-G. Lou, and H. Xiong, “Evaluating llm-based agents for multi-turn conversations: A survey,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    Asleep at the keyboard? assessing the security of github copilot’s code contributions,

    H. Pearce, B. Ahmad, B. Tan, B. Dolan-Gavitt, and R. Karri, “Asleep at the keyboard? assessing the security of github copilot’s code contributions,” inIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2022, pp. 754–768

    2022

  5. [5]

    Lost at c: A user study on the security implications of large language model code assistants,

    G. Sandoval, H. Pearce, T. Nys, R. Karri, S. Garg, and B. Dolan- Gavitt, “Lost at c: A user study on the security implications of large language model code assistants,” inUSENIX Security Symposium, 2023, pp. 2205–2222

    2023

  6. [6]

    A survey on large language models for code generation,

    J. Jiang, F. Wang, J. Shen, S. Kim, and S. Kim, “A survey on large language models for code generation,”ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1–72, 2026

    2026

  7. [7]

    Not what you’ve signed up for: Compromising real- world llm-integrated applications with indirect prompt injection,

    K. Greshake, S. Abdelnabi, S. Mishra, C. Endres, T. Holz, and M. Fritz, “Not what you’ve signed up for: Compromising real- world llm-integrated applications with indirect prompt injection,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and security, 2023, pp. 79–90

    2023

  8. [8]

    Workflowllm: Enhancing workflow orchestration capability of large language models,

    S. Fan, X. Cong, Y . Fu, Z. Zhang, S. Zhang, Y . Liu, Y . Wu, Y . Lin, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, “Workflowllm: Enhancing workflow orchestration capability of large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05451, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Agent security bench (asb): Formalizing and benchmark- ing attacks and defenses in llm-based agents,

    H. Zhang, J. Huang, K. Mei, Y . Yao, Z. Wang, C. Zhan, H. Wang, and Y . Zhang, “Agent security bench (asb): Formalizing and benchmark- ing attacks and defenses in llm-based agents,” inInternational Con- ference on Learning Representations, vol. 2025, 2025, pp. 35 331– 35 366

    2025

  2. [10]

    Isolategpt: An execution isolation architecture for llm-based agentic systems,

    Y . Wu, F. Roesner, T. Kohno, N. Zhang, and U. Iqbal, “Isolategpt: An execution isolation architecture for llm-based agentic systems,” in Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Agentdojo: A dynamic environment to evaluate prompt injection attacks and defenses for llm agents,

    E. Debenedetti, J. Zhang, M. Balunovic, L. Beurer-Kellner, M. Fis- cher, and F. Tram`er, “Agentdojo: A dynamic environment to evaluate prompt injection attacks and defenses for llm agents,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 82 895–82 920, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    A survey on agentic security: Applications, threats and defenses,

    A. Shahriar, M. N. Rahman, S. Ahmed, F. Sadeque, and M. R. Parvez, “A survey on agentic security: Applications, threats and defenses,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06445, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Ai agents under threat: A survey of key security challenges and future pathways,

    Z. Deng, Y . Guo, C. Han, W. Ma, J. Xiong, S. Wen, and Y . Xiang, “Ai agents under threat: A survey of key security challenges and future pathways,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1–36, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail?

    A. Wei, N. Haghtalab, and J. Steinhardt, “Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail?” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2023, pp. 80 079–80 110

    2023

  7. [15]

    Malla: Demystifying real-world large language model integrated malicious services,

    Z. Lin, J. Cui, X. Liao, and X. Wang, “Malla: Demystifying real-world large language model integrated malicious services,” in USENIX Security Symposium, 2024, pp. 4693–4710

    2024

  8. [16]

    Gptracker: A large- scale measurement of misused gpts,

    X. Shen, Y . Shen, M. Backes, and Y . Zhang, “Gptracker: A large- scale measurement of misused gpts,” inIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2025, pp. 336–354

    2025

  9. [17]

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

    Z. Yu, X. Liu, S. Liang, Z. Cameron, C. Xiao, and N. Zhang, “Don’t listen to me: Understanding and exploring jailbreak prompts of large language models,” inUSENIX Security Symposium, 2024, pp. 4675– 4692

    2024

  10. [18]

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

    Y . Yao, J. Duan, K. Xu, Y . Cai, Z. Sun, and Y . Zhang, “A survey on large language model (llm) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly,”High-Confidence Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 100211, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    From chatbots to phishbots?: Phishing scam generation in commercial large language models,

    S. S. Roy, P. Thota, K. V . Naragam, and S. Nilizadeh, “From chatbots to phishbots?: Phishing scam generation in commercial large language models,” inIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2024, pp. 36– 54

    2024

  12. [20]

    Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback,

    Y . Baiet al., “Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Improving llm safety alignment with dual-objective optimization,

    X. Zhao, W. Cai, T. Shi, D. Huang, L. Lin, S. Mei, and D. Song, “Improving llm safety alignment with dual-objective optimization,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2025, pp. 77 321– 77 341

    2025

  14. [22]

    Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to!

    X. Qi, Y . Zeng, T. Xie, P.-Y . Chen, R. Jia, P. Mittal, and P. Henderson, “Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to!” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024, pp. 30 988–31 043

    2024

  15. [23]

    Harmbench: a standardized evaluation framework for automated red teaming and robust refusal,

    M. Mazeika, L. Phan, X. Yin, A. Zou, Z. Wang, N. Mu, E. Sakhaee, N. Li, S. Basart, B. Liet al., “Harmbench: a standardized evaluation framework for automated red teaming and robust refusal,” inInter- national Conference on Machine Learning, 2024, pp. 35 181–35 224

    2024

  16. [24]

    Wildteaming at scale: From in-the-wild jailbreaks to (adversarially) safer language models,

    L. Jiang, K. Rao, S. Han, A. Ettinger, F. Brahman, S. Kumar, N. Mireshghallah, X. Lu, M. Sap, Y . Choiet al., “Wildteaming at scale: From in-the-wild jailbreaks to (adversarially) safer language models,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 47 094–47 ...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Improving alignment and robustness with circuit breakers,

    A. Zou, L. Phan, J. Wang, D. Duenas, M. Lin, M. Andriushchenko, R. Wang, Z. Kolter, M. Fredrikson, and D. Hendrycks, “Improving alignment and robustness with circuit breakers,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 83 345–83 373, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Parden, can you repeat that? defending against jailbreaks via repetition,

    Z. Zhang, Q. Zhang, and J. Foerster, “Parden, can you repeat that? defending against jailbreaks via repetition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07932, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    On large language models’ resilience to coercive interrogation,

    Z. Zhang, G. Shen, G. Tao, S. Cheng, and X. Zhang, “On large language models’ resilience to coercive interrogation,” inIEEE Sym- posium on Security and Privacy, 2024, pp. 826–844

    2024

  20. [28]

    You only prompt once: On the capabilities of prompt learning on large language models to tackle toxic content,

    X. He, S. Zannettou, Y . Shen, and Y . Zhang, “You only prompt once: On the capabilities of prompt learning on large language models to tackle toxic content,” inIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2024, pp. 770–787

    2024

  21. [29]

    {LLM-Fuzzer}: Scaling as- sessment of large language model jailbreaks,

    J. Yu, X. Lin, Z. Yu, and X. Xing, “{LLM-Fuzzer}: Scaling as- sessment of large language model jailbreaks,” inUSENIX Security Symposium, 2024, pp. 4657–4674

    2024

  22. [30]

    Mind the inconspicuous: Revealing the hidden weakness in aligned {LLMs}’refusal boundaries,

    J. Yu, H. Luo, J. Y .-C. Hu, Y . Chen, W. Guo, H. Liu, and X. Xing, “Mind the inconspicuous: Revealing the hidden weakness in aligned {LLMs}’refusal boundaries,” inUSENIX Security Symposium, 2025, pp. 259–278

    2025

  23. [31]

    Safety misalignment against large language models

    Y . Gong, D. Ran, X. He, T. Cong, A. Wang, and X. Wang, “Safety misalignment against large language models.” inNDSS, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Refusal is not an option: Unlearning safety alignment of large language models,

    M. Song, H. Kim, J. Kim, S. Shin, and S. Son, “Refusal is not an option: Unlearning safety alignment of large language models,” in USENIX Security Symposium, 2025, pp. 319–338

    2025

  25. [33]

    Mission impossible: A statistical perspective on jailbreaking llms,

    J. Su, J. Kempe, and K. Ullrich, “Mission impossible: A statistical perspective on jailbreaking llms,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 38 267–38 306, 2024

    2024

  26. [35]

    A comprehensive study of jailbreak attack versus defense for large language models,

    Z. Xu, Y . Liu, G. Deng, Y . Li, and S. Picek, “A comprehensive study of jailbreak attack versus defense for large language models,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, 2024, pp. 7432–7449

    2024

  27. [36]

    “do anything now

    X. Shen, Z. Chen, M. Backes, Y . Shen, and Y . Zhang, ““do anything now”: Characterizing and evaluating in-the-wild jailbreak prompts on large language models,” inACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2024, pp. 1671–1685

    2024

  28. [37]

    {TwinBreak}: Jailbreak- ing{LLM}security alignments based on twin prompts,

    T. Krauß, H. Dashtbani, and A. Dmitrienko, “{TwinBreak}: Jailbreak- ing{LLM}security alignments based on twin prompts,” inUSENIX Security Symposium, 2025, pp. 2343–2362

    2025

  29. [38]

    Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models,

    A. Zou, Z. Wang, N. Carlini, M. Nasr, J. Z. Kolter, and M. Fredrikson, “Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries,

    P. Chao, A. Robey, E. Dobriban, H. Hassani, G. J. Pappas, and E. Wong, “Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries,” inIEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning, 2025, pp. 23–42

    2025

  31. [40]

    Tree of attacks: Jailbreaking black- box llms automatically,

    A. Mehrotra, M. Zampetakis, P. Kassianik, B. Nelson, H. Anderson, Y . Singer, and A. Karbasi, “Tree of attacks: Jailbreaking black- box llms automatically,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 61 065–61 105, 2024

    2024

  32. [41]

    Making them ask and answer: Jailbreaking large language models in few queries via disguise and reconstruction,

    T. Liu, Y . Zhang, Z. Zhao, Y . Dong, G. Meng, and K. Chen, “Making them ask and answer: Jailbreaking large language models in few queries via disguise and reconstruction,” inUSENIX Security Symposium, 2024, pp. 4711–4728

    2024

  33. [42]

    Sneakyprompt: Jailbreaking text-to-image generative models,

    Y . Yang, B. Hui, H. Yuan, N. Gong, and Y . Cao, “Sneakyprompt: Jailbreaking text-to-image generative models,” inIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2024, pp. 897–912

    2024

  34. [43]

    Fuzz-testing meets llm- based agents: An automated and efficient framework for jailbreaking text-to-image generation models,

    Y . Dong, X. Meng, N. Yu, Z. Li, and S. Guo, “Fuzz-testing meets llm- based agents: An automated and efficient framework for jailbreaking text-to-image generation models,” inIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2025, pp. 373–391

    2025

  35. [44]

    Modifier unlocked: Jailbreak- ing text-to-image models through prompts,

    S. Liu, M. Ma, M. Xue, and G. Bai, “Modifier unlocked: Jailbreak- ing text-to-image models through prompts,” inIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2025, pp. 355–372

    2025

  36. [45]

    From llms to mllms to agents: A survey of emerging paradigms in jailbreak attacks and defenses within llm ecosystem,

    Y . Mao, T. Cui, P. Liu, D. You, and H. Zhu, “From llms to mllms to agents: A survey of emerging paradigms in jailbreak attacks and defenses within llm ecosystem,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15170, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Exposing the guardrails:{Reverse- Engineering}and jailbreaking safety filters in{DALL· E}{Text-to- Image}pipelines,

    C. Villa, S. Mirza, and C. P ¨opper, “Exposing the guardrails:{Reverse- Engineering}and jailbreaking safety filters in{DALL· E}{Text-to- Image}pipelines,” inUSENIX Security Symposium, 2025, pp. 897– 916

    2025

  38. [47]

    Jailbreaking llms: A survey of attacks, defenses and evaluation,

    S. B. Hakim, K. Gharami, N. F. Ghalaty, S. S. Moni, S. Xu, and H. H. Song, “Jailbreaking llms: A survey of attacks, defenses and evaluation,”Authorea Preprints, 2026

    2026

  39. [48]

    Surrogateprompt: Bypassing the safety filter of text-to-image models via substitution,

    Z. Ba, J. Zhong, J. Lei, P. Cheng, Q. Wang, Z. Qin, Z. Wang, and K. Ren, “Surrogateprompt: Bypassing the safety filter of text-to-image models via substitution,” inACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2024, pp. 1166–1180

    2024

  40. [49]

    Jailbreakbench: An open robustness benchmark for jail- breaking large language models,

    P. Chao, E. Debenedetti, A. Robey, M. Andriushchenko, F. Croce, V . Sehwag, E. Dobriban, N. Flammarion, G. J. Pappas, F. Tramer et al., “Jailbreakbench: An open robustness benchmark for jail- breaking large language models,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vo...

    2024

  41. [50]

    Llms get lost in multi-turn conversation,

    P. Laban, H. Hayashi, Y . Zhou, and J. Neville, “Llms get lost in multi-turn conversation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06120, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  42. [51]

    A survey on multi-turn interaction capabilities of large language models,

    C. Zhang, X. Dai, Y . Wu, Q. Yang, Y . Wang, R. Tang, and Y . Liu, “A survey on multi-turn interaction capabilities of large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09959, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Llm defenses are not robust to multi-turn human jailbreaks yet,

    N. Li, Z. Han, I. Steneker, W. Primack, R. Goodside, H. Zhang, Z. Wang, C. Menghini, and S. Yue, “Llm defenses are not robust to multi-turn human jailbreaks yet,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15221, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Great, now write an article about that: The crescendo{Multi-Turn}{LLM}jailbreak attack,

    M. Russinovich, A. Salem, and R. Eldan, “Great, now write an article about that: The crescendo{Multi-Turn}{LLM}jailbreak attack,” in USENIX Security Symposium, 2025, pp. 2421–2440

    2025

  45. [54]

    Foot-in-the-door: A multi- turn jailbreak for LLMs,

    Z. Weng, X. Jin, J. Jia, and X. Zhang, “Foot-in-the-door: A multi- turn jailbreak for LLMs,” inProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2025, pp. 1939–1950

    2025

  46. [55]

    Lever- aging the Context through Multi-Round Interactions for Jailbreaking Attacks,

    Y . Cheng, M. Georgopoulos, V . Cevher, and G. G. Chrysos, “Lever- aging the Context through Multi-Round Interactions for Jailbreaking Attacks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09177, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Multi-Turn Context Jailbreak Attack on Large Language Models From First Principles,

    X. Sun, D. Zhang, D. Yang, Q. Zou, and H. Li, “Multi-Turn Context Jailbreak Attack on Large Language Models From First Principles,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04686, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Masterkey: Automated jailbreaking of large language model chatbots,

    G. Deng, Y . Liu, Y . Li, K. Wang, Y . Zhang, Z. Li, H. Wang, T. Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Masterkey: Automated jailbreaking of large language model chatbots,” 2024

    2024

  49. [58]

    Automated red teaming with goat: the generative offensive agent tester,

    M. Pavlova, E. Brinkman, K. Iyer, V . Albiero, J. Bitton, H. Nguyen, J. Li, C. C. Ferrer, I. Evtimov, and A. Grattafiori, “Automated red teaming with goat: the generative offensive agent tester,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01606, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Strategize globally, adapt locally: A multi-turn red teaming agent with dual-level learning,

    S. Chen, X. Yu, N. Mehrabi, R. Gupta, Z. Yu, and R. Jia, “Strategize globally, adapt locally: A multi-turn red teaming agent with dual-level learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01278, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Tempest: Autonomous multi-turn jailbreak- ing of large language models with tree search,

    A. Zhou and R. Arel, “Tempest: Autonomous multi-turn jailbreak- ing of large language models with tree search,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10619, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  52. [61]

    X-teaming: Multi-turn jailbreaks and defenses with adaptive multi-agents,

    S. Rahman, L. Jiang, J. Shiffer, G. Liu, S. Issaka, M. R. Parvez, H. Palangi, K.-W. Chang, Y . Choi, and S. Gabriel, “X-teaming: Multi-turn jailbreaks and defenses with adaptive multi-agents,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13203, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Safe in isolation, dangerous together: Agent-driven multi-turn decomposition jailbreaks on LLMs,

    D. Srivastav and X. Zhang, “Safe in isolation, dangerous together: Agent-driven multi-turn decomposition jailbreaks on LLMs,” inPro- ceedings of the 1st Workshop for Research on Agent Language Models, 2025, pp. 170–183

    2025

  54. [63]

    Prompt, divide, and conquer: Bypassing large language model safety filters via segmented and distributed prompt processing,

    J. Wahr ´eus, A. Hussain, and P. Papadimitratos, “Prompt, divide, and conquer: Bypassing large language model safety filters via segmented and distributed prompt processing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21598, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Survey of vulnerabilities in large language models revealed by adversarial attacks,

    E. Shayegani, M. A. Al Mamun, Y . Fu, P. Zaree, Y . Dong, and N. Abu-Ghazaleh, “Survey of vulnerabilities in large language models revealed by adversarial attacks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10844, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Sok: Evaluating jailbreak guardrails for large language models,

    X. Wang, Z. Ji, W. Wang, Z. Li, D. Wu, and S. Wang, “Sok: Evaluating jailbreak guardrails for large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10597, 2025

    2025

  57. [66]

    Prompt-based jailbreaking of leading llm chatbots: A survey of attacks and defenses,

    B. Knowlton, J. Campa, D. S. Gallo, K. Dajani, and N. Alzahrani, “Prompt-based jailbreaking of leading llm chatbots: A survey of attacks and defenses,”IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2026

    2026

  58. [67]

    Sok: Taxonomy and evalua- tion of prompt security in large language models,

    H. Hong, S. Feng, N. Naderloui, S. Yan, J. Zhang, B. Liu, A. Araste- hfard, H. Huang, and Y . Hong, “Sok: Taxonomy and evalua- tion of prompt security in large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15476, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Hon- eytrap: Deceiving large language model attackers to honeypot traps with resilient multi-agent defense,

    S. Li, X. Lin, J. Wu, Z. Liu, H. Li, T. Ju, X. Chen, and J. Li, “Hon- eytrap: Deceiving large language model attackers to honeypot traps with resilient multi-agent defense,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04034, 2026

    2026

  60. [69]

    Sok: Robustness in large language models against jailbreak attacks,

    F. Xu, H. Hu, C. He, S. Hang, H. Hu, X. Liu, Y . Zhao, Z. Zhou, B. B. Zhu, S.-F. Sunet al., “Sok: Robustness in large language models against jailbreak attacks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.05058, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Security and privacy challenges of large language models: A survey,

    B. C. Das, M. H. Amini, and Y . Wu, “Security and privacy challenges of large language models: A survey,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1–39, 2025

    2025

  62. [71]

    Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey,

    S. Yi, Y . Liu, Z. Sun, T. Cong, X. He, J. Song, K. Xu, and Q. Li, “Jailbreak attacks and defenses against large language models: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04295, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  63. [72]

    How alignment and jailbreak work: Explain LLM safety through interme- diate hidden states,

    Z. Zhou, H. Yu, X. Zhang, R. Xu, F. Huang, and Y . Li, “How alignment and jailbreak work: Explain LLM safety through interme- diate hidden states,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, 2024, pp. 2461–2488

    2024

  64. [73]

    Refusal in language models is mediated by a single direction,

    A. Arditi, O. Obeso, A. Syed, D. Paleka, N. Panickssery, W. Gurnee, and N. Nanda, “Refusal in language models is mediated by a single direction,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, 2024, pp. 136 037–136 083

    2024

  65. [74]

    Analogy-based multi-turn jailbreak against large language models,

    M. Wu, Y . Huang, Z. Lin, K. Chen, Y . Huang, R. Wang, L. Wang et al., “Analogy-based multi-turn jailbreak against large language models,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 38, 2026, pp. 123 789–123 816

    2026

  66. [75]

    Derail Yourself: Multi-turn LLM Jailbreak Attack through Self-discovered Clues,

    Q. Ren, H. Li, D. Liu, Z. Xie, X. Lu, Y . Qiao, L. Sha, J. Yan, L. Ma, and J. Shao, “Derail Yourself: Multi-turn LLM Jailbreak Attack through Self-discovered Clues,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10700, 2024

    2024

  67. [76]

    Reasoning-Augmented Conversation for Multi-Turn Jailbreak Attacks on Large Language Models,

    Z. Ying, D. Zhang, Z. Jing, Y . Xiao, Q. Zou, A. Liu, S. Liang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, and D. Tao, “Reasoning-Augmented Conversation for Multi-Turn Jailbreak Attacks on Large Language Models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11054, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Icon: Intent-context coupling for efficient multi-turn jailbreak attack,

    X. Lin, W. Lin, S. Cao, J. Yu, R. Huang, L. Xue, and C. Wu, “Icon: Intent-context coupling for efficient multi-turn jailbreak attack,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20903, 2026

    2026

  69. [78]

    Imposter.AI: Adversarial Attacks with Hidden Intentions towards Aligned Large Language Models,

    X. Liu, L. Li, T. Xiang, F. Ye, L. Wei, W. Li, and N. Garcia, “Imposter.AI: Adversarial Attacks with Hidden Intentions towards Aligned Large Language Models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15399, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Jigsaw puzzles: Split- ting harmful questions to jailbreak large language models in multi- turn interactions,

    H. Yang, L. Qu, E. Shareghi, and G. Haffari, “Jigsaw puzzles: Split- ting harmful questions to jailbreak large language models in multi- turn interactions,” inSecond Conference on Language Modeling, 2025

    2025

  71. [80]

    Speak Out of Turn: Safety Vulnerability of Large Language Models in Multi-turn Dialogue,

    Z. Zhou, J. Xiang, H. Chen, Q. Liu, Z. Li, and S. Su, “Speak Out of Turn: Safety Vulnerability of Large Language Models in Multi-turn Dialogue,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17262, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  72. [81]

    MRJ-Agent: An Effective Jailbreak Agent for Multi-Round Dialogue,

    F. Wang, R. Duan, P. Xiao, X. Jia, S. Zhao, C. Wei, Y . Chen, C. Wang, J. Tao, H. Su, J. Zhu, and H. Xue, “MRJ-Agent: An Effective Jailbreak Agent for Multi-Round Dialogue,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03814, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Siren: A Learning-Based Multi-Turn Attack Framework for Simulating Real-World Human Jailbreak Behaviors,

    Y . Zhao and Y . Zhang, “Siren: A Learning-Based Multi-Turn Attack Framework for Simulating Real-World Human Jailbreak Behaviors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14250, 2025

    2025

  74. [83]

    Incremental exploits: Efficient jailbreaks on large language models with multi-round conversational jailbreaking,

    J. Qiu, W. Xu, peiyaoyuan, Y . Zhao, and L. Zhao, “Incremental exploits: Efficient jailbreaks on large language models with multi-round conversational jailbreaking,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=KyKTjRtyNG

    2024

  75. [84]

    Coopguard: Stateful cooperative agents safeguarding llms against evolving multi-round attacks,

    S. Li, Z. Liu, X. Lin, Q. Mao, Y . Chen, H. Li, J. Wu, J. Li, and X. Su, “Coopguard: Stateful cooperative agents safeguarding llms against evolving multi-round attacks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.04060, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Multi- turn jailbreaking large language models via attention shifting,

    X. Du, F. Mo, M. Wen, T. Gu, H. Zheng, H. Jin, and J. Shi, “Multi- turn jailbreaking large language models via attention shifting,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 22, 2025, pp. 23 814–23 822

    2025

  77. [86]

    Efficient jailbreak attack sequences on large language models via multi- armed bandit-based context switching,

    A. Ramesh, S. Bhardwaj, A. Saibewar, and M. Kaul, “Efficient jailbreak attack sequences on large language models via multi- armed bandit-based context switching,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  78. [87]

    Jailbreaking large language models through iterative tool-disguised attacks via reinforcement learning,

    Z. Wang, Z. Zhang, D. He, P. Kou, X. Li, J. Liu, J. An, and Y . Liu, “Jailbreaking large language models through iterative tool-disguised attacks via reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05466, 2026

    2026

  79. [88]

    Sema: Simple yet effective learning for multi-turn jailbreak attacks,

    M. Feng, X. Liu, W. Yang, J. Song, X. Zhu, C. Xu, and J. Gao, “Sema: Simple yet effective learning for multi-turn jailbreak attacks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06854, 2026

    2026

  80. [89]

    Redcoder: Automated multi-turn red teaming for code llms,

    W. J. Mo, Q. Liu, X. Wen, D. Jung, H. Askari, W. Zhou, Z. Zhao, and M. Chen, “Redcoder: Automated multi-turn red teaming for code llms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22063, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Multi-turn jail- breaking of aligned llms via lexical anchor tree search,

    D. Kulshreshtha, H. Su, C. Hegde, and H. Wang, “Multi-turn jail- breaking of aligned llms via lexical anchor tree search,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02670, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  82. [91]

    I know what you asked: Prompt leakage via kv-cache sharing in multi-tenant llm serving

    G. Wu, Z. Zhang, Y . Zhang, W. Wang, J. Niu, Y . Wu, and Y . Zhang, “I know what you asked: Prompt leakage via kv-cache sharing in multi-tenant llm serving.” inNetwork and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2025

    2025

  83. [92]

    Pleak: Prompt leaking attacks against large language model applications,

    B. Hui, H. Yuan, N. Gong, P. Burlina, and Y . Cao, “Pleak: Prompt leaking attacks against large language model applications,” inACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2024, p. 3600–3614

    2024

  84. [93]

    Safedialbench: a fine-grained safety evaluation benchmark for large language models in multi-turn dialogues with diverse jailbreak attacks,

    H. Cao, S. Jing, Y . Wang, Z. Peng, Z. Bai, Z. Cao, M. Fang, F. Feng, J. Liu, B. Wanget al., “Safedialbench: a fine-grained safety evaluation benchmark for large language models in multi-turn dialogues with diverse jailbreak attacks,” inThe Fourteenth International Conference ...

    2026

  85. [94]

    Agentharm: A benchmark for measuring harmfulness of llm agents,

    M. Andriushchenko, A. Souly, M. Dziemian, D. Duenas, M. Lin, J. Wang, D. Hendrycks, A. Zou, Z. Kolter, M. Fredriksonet al., “Agentharm: A benchmark for measuring harmfulness of llm agents,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, vol. 2025, 2025, pp. 79 185–79 220

    2025

  86. [95]

    Agents under siege: Breaking pragmatic multi-agent llm systems with optimized prompt attacks,

    R. Shahroz, Z. Tan, S. Yun, C. Fleming, and T. Chen, “Agents under siege: Breaking pragmatic multi-agent llm systems with optimized prompt attacks,” inProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2025, pp. 9661–9674

    2025

  87. [96]

    Multibreak: A scalable and diverse multi-turn jailbreak benchmark for evaluating llm safety,

    J. Song, X. Liu, W. Yang, W. Chen, M. Feng, X. Zhu, and J. Gao, “Multibreak: A scalable and diverse multi-turn jailbreak benchmark for evaluating llm safety,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.01687, 2026. Appendix A. Experimental Setup This appendix records the execution-level details...

    2026 arXiv

  88. [97]

    For the MRCJ-side experiment, auxiliary questions and malice-level labels follow the MRCJ release [83] without modification

    In the Persistence condition, the attacker retries at most 10 times, with LLM-based rephrasing applied after refusals. For the MRCJ-side experiment, auxiliary questions and malice-level labels follow the MRCJ release [83] without modification. The final harmful targets are 50 ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.