REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by
Security Steerability is All You Need
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper argues that an LLM's resistance to universal harmful-prompt attacks carries almost no information about whether it will honor an application's custom guardrails, and it introduces a benchmark and metric, Security Steerability…
desk verdict VeganRibs is a genuinely useful benchmark, but the headline zero-correlation result needs better measurement before it can be trusted. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the security steerability score produced by the VeganRibs benchmark. Each of its 240 samples is a tuple containing a system prompt that defines an application and a non-security guardrail, a user prompt that deviates from that guardrail, a booster (a jailbreak or textual perturbation, such as leet speak or Base64 encoding), and a judge prompt used by a separate judge LLM to decide whether the guardrail was violated. The benchmark deliberately excludes universal security content, so that the score isolates a model's willingness to prioritize system-level instructions over conflicting user instructions. This machinery lets the authors rank models, compare them with a universal-security benchmark, and attribute differences in scores to guardrail-following behavior rather than to refusal of inherently harmful content.
What would settle it
Take a random sample of 200 VeganRibs outputs, have three independent human annotators label each as guardrail-violating or compliant, compare those labels with the judge LLM's verdicts, then recompute the Pearson correlation between VeganRibs scores and the universal-jailbreak benchmark using the human labels; if the correlation is not near zero, the paper's central claim fails.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that guardrail adherence in LLM applications is a distinct capability from universal jailbreak resistance, and that the two are essentially uncorrelated: across 18 open-source models, the Pearson correlation between VeganRibs guardrail-violation rates and a standard universal-jailbreak benchmark is r = 0.125 with p = 0.621. Security Steerability scores range from 0.379 to 0.837, with the best score achieved by a compact 3.8B-parameter model rather than the largest one, showing that model size is not a reliable predictor. The paper also documents striking individual reversals: one 9B model has a high universal-jailbreak violation rate but a low guardrail-violation rate, while a 3B model shows the opposite pattern. The authors interpret this as evidence that conventional scaling or safety training alone does not produce policy-enforcement behavior, and that security steerability should be evaluated and trained as its own axis of LLM security.
Load-bearing premise
The entire scoring pipeline trusts a judge LLM's verdict on whether a guardrail was violated, and the paper does not validate that judge against human labels or check inter-judge agreement, so a biased or noisy judge could change model rankings and even erase the reported zero correlation.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If the zero correlation is correct, model selection for customer-facing or agentic applications should not rely on universal jailbreak scores; application-specific guardrail adherence needs its own evaluation.
- Because guardrail adherence can be improved or "patched" through the system prompt, application builders can raise security by rewriting system prompts rather than replacing the underlying model.
- Security steerability appears to be a trainable capability distinct from universal refusal behavior, so vendors can target it with specialized training rather than relying on scale.
- High-scoring models should be preferred for applications where user attempts to repurpose the system—such as getting travel advice from a weather assistant—would cause reputational, financial, or operational harm.
- Benchmarks for LLM security should include application-centric scenarios, not only prohibited-content categories, to cover the full threat landscape of deployed GenAI applications.
Reading between the lines
- Our editorial inference: if the zero-correlation result survives a human-validated judge, jailbreak resistance and instruction-hierarchy adherence may be orthogonal safety axes, so safety taxonomies should treat them separately rather than as one "security" score.
- Our editorial inference: the booster-type asymmetry (jailbreaks fail about 57% of the time versus perturbations about 22%) suggests that security steerability may actually bundle distinct robustness traits—one for instruction-override attacks and one for encoding or obfuscation attacks—which future benchmarks could separate.
- Our editorial inference: the same measurement logic could extend to agentic LLMs, where the guardrail is a tool-use policy, such as refusing to call a payment tool when a user prompt tries to override the system-level restriction.
- Our editorial inference: a direct causal test would be to fine-tune a low-scoring open model on VeganRibs-style guardrail adherence and check whether its universal jailbreak score stays unchanged; if it does, the two capabilities are not only statistically uncorrelated but causally separate.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper introduces 'Security Steerability' as a metric for an LLM's ability to respect application-specific guardrails in the system prompt under adversarial user input, and presents VeganRibs, a new benchmark of 240 guarded scenarios with jailbreak and perturbation boosters. The authors evaluate 18 open-source LLMs, report a wide range of security-steerability scores, and compare these scores with violation rates on a 240-attack subset of JailbreakV-28k. They report a near-zero correlation (Pearson r = 0.125, p = 0.621) and conclude that universal jailbreak-resistance benchmarks do not predict application-level guardrail adherence.
Significance. If the central empirical claim holds, the paper identifies an important blind spot in LLM security evaluation: conventional universal-security benchmarks may not reflect how well a model enforces application-specific system-prompt boundaries. The proposed benchmark is a useful public artifact, and the comparison between the two security perspectives is a timely research question. The paper is commendable for releasing VeganRibs and for explicitly framing the correlation question as a falsifiable empirical claim. However, the current evidentiary basis for the 'zero correlation' conclusion is incomplete, primarily because the judge-LLM measurement pipeline and the JailbreakV-28k evaluation protocol are not described or validated.
major comments (4)
- [Section III.A] The judge LLM is the measurement instrument for every VeganRibs score in Table III, but the paper never identifies the judge model, reports decoding parameters, shows the judge prompt, or validates judge verdicts against human labels, nor does it report inter-judge agreement. A biased or noisy judge can reorder model rankings and either create or erase the reported correlation with JailbreakV-28k, so this is a load-bearing gap for the central claim.
- [Section IV.B] The JailbreakV-28k comparison is underspecified: the paper states that 240 attacks were sampled (24 per 10 categories) but does not describe the sampling procedure, the evaluation protocol used to obtain per-model violation rates, the judge or scorer, or whether these rates were computed by the authors or taken from prior work. Since the two benchmarks may have used different judges, prompt templates, and scoring thresholds, the observed non-correlation could reflect differences between measurement pipelines rather than between the two security properties.
- [Section IV.B] With n = 18 models, p = 0.621 only shows that the null hypothesis of zero correlation cannot be rejected; it does not establish that the correlation is zero. The paper should report a confidence interval for the Pearson correlation (or an equivalence test) and should also report correlations with uncertainty bands. Without this, the statement that there is 'ZERO correlation' is statistically overclaimed.
- [Appendix B, Table VI] The very low violation rates for Base64 encoding (0.028), reversed text (0.022), and upside-down text (0.006) suggest that the judge may be lenient on these perturbations or that they are effectively neutralized by the models, while jailbreak boosters produce a much higher violation rate (0.572). Because the aggregate VeganRibs score is a mix of these heterogeneous conditions, the paper should report whether the near-zero correlation with JailbreakV-28k is robust when jailbreak and perturbation subsets are analyzed separately, or whether it is driven by the specific booster distribution in VeganRibs.
minor comments (5)
- [Abstract] The benchmark name is rendered as 'V eganRibs' in several places; this appears to be a typesetting artifact and should be consistently 'VeganRibs'.
- [Table III] The parameter counts are formatted as '3.8 × 109' without superscripts; use '3.8 × 10^9' for readability.
- [References] Reference [2] contains a URL with a space ('security steerability'); the URL should be percent-encoded or otherwise formatted correctly so it is actually linkable.
- [Section IV.A] The claim that there is 'low correlation between the number of parameters and the level of security steerability' is not accompanied by a correlation coefficient or scatter plot; adding this quantitative detail would strengthen the point.
- [Figure 1] The figure caption does not define the plotted quantities precisely (e.g., whether the scores are the same 240 VeganRibs samples used for the correlation) nor does it show error bars; adding axis labels and a description of the ordering would improve interpretability.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the zero-correlation result compares an internally operationalized steerability score with an external jailbreak benchmark, with no fitted-input or self-derivation chain.
full rationale
The paper's central empirical claim is the near-zero Pearson correlation (r = 0.125, p = 0.621) between VeganRibs security-steerability scores and JailbreakV-28k violation rates. These are two separately constructed measurements: VeganRibs scores are judge-LLM-assessed violation rates over 240 system-prompt guardrail scenarios, while JailbreakV-28k scores are violation rates on a sampled subset of an external universal-jailbreak benchmark. Neither score is derived from the other by an equation, and no parameter is fitted to one dataset and then reported as a prediction on the other. Security Steerability is introduced as a definition, and the VeganRibs benchmark measures that definition; this is a standard operationalization rather than a circular reduction of an alleged prediction to its inputs. The only author self-citation is reference [2], which points to the released VeganRibs dataset; it is not invoked to justify the zero-correlation conclusion and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior author work. Concerns about the unvalidated judge LLM or the unreported JailbreakV-28k evaluation protocol are legitimate threats to measurement validity and reproducibility, but they are not instances of a claim reducing to its own inputs by construction. Under the stated criteria, no specific circular step can be quoted, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (3)
- domain assumption Judge-LLM outputs accurately reflect whether a system-prompt guardrail was violated.
- domain assumption The 240 VeganRibs scenarios are representative of application-specific guardrail conflicts.
- domain assumption The 240-sample subset of JailbreakV-28k represents universal-security performance.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Security Steerability is All You Need." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IBRW4BN7
@misc{pith2026250419521,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Security Steerability is All You Need},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IBRW4BN7}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19521}
}
read the original abstract
The adoption of Generative AI (GenAI) in applications inevitably comes with the expansion of the attack surface, combining new security threats along with the traditional ones. Consequently, numerous research and industrial initiatives aim to mitigate the GenAI related security threats by developing evaluation methods and designing defenses. However, while most of the GenAI security work focuses on universal threats (e.g. 'How to build a bomb'), there is significantly less discussion on application-level security and how to evaluate and mitigate it. Thus, in this work we adopt an application-centric approach to GenAI security, and show that while LLMs cannot protect against ad-hoc application specific threats, they can provide the framework for applications to protect themselves against such threats. Our first contribution is defining Security Steerability - a novel security measure for LLMs, assessing the model's capability to adhere to strict guardrails that are defined in the system prompt (e.g. 'Refrain from discussing about our competitors'). These guardrails, in case effective, can stop threats in the presence of malicious users who attempt to circumvent the application purpose. Our second contribution is a methodology to measure the security steerability of LLMs, utilizing a newly-developed benchmark called VeganRibs which assesses the LLM behavior in forcing specific guardrails that are not security per-se, in the presence of malicious user that tries to bypass the guardrails through prompt injection attacks with attack boosters (jailbreaks and perturbations). Using the new benchmark, we analyzed 18 open-source LLMs, demonstrating significant differences between their security steerability that are not trivial to foresee...
Figures
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Backdoor Attack on Vision Language Models with Stealthy Semantic Manipulation
BadSem shows that semantic mismatches between images and text can serve as stealthy backdoor triggers for VLMs, achieving near-perfect attack success with low poisoning rates.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Measuring steerability in large language models,
T. Chang, J. Wiens, T. Schnabel, and A. Swaminathan, “Measuring steerability in large language models,” in Neurips Safe Generative AI Workshop 2024, 2024
work page 2024
-
[2]
“security steerability,” Hugging Face Dataset Hub, 2025, accessed: 2025-04-23. [Online]. Available: https://huggingface.co/datasets/itayhf/ security steerability
work page 2025
-
[3]
W. Luo, S. Ma, X. Liu, X. Guo, and C. Xiao, “Jailbreakv-28k: A benchmark for assessing the robustness of multimodal large language models against jailbreak attacks,” 2024
work page 2024
-
[4]
GPQA: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark,
D. Rein, B. L. Hou, A. C. Stickland, J. Petty, R. Y . Pang, J. Dirani, J. Michael, and S. R. Bowman, “GPQA: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022 , 2024
arXiv 2024
-
[5]
Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset,
D. Hendrycks, C. Burns, S. Kadavath, A. Arora, S. Basart, E. Tang, D. Song, and J. Steinhardt, “Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874 , 2021
arXiv 2021
-
[6]
Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark,
Y . Wang, X. Ma, G. Zhang, Y . Ni, A. Chandra, S. Guo, W. Ren, A. Arulraj, X. He, Z. Jiang, T. Li, M. Ku, K. Wang, A. Zhuang, R. Fan, X. Yue, and W. Chen, “Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01574 , 2024
arXiv 2024
-
[7]
Steer-bench: A benchmark for evaluating the steerability of large language models,
K. Chen, Z. He, T. Shi, and K. Lerman, “Steer-bench: A benchmark for evaluating the steerability of large language models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20645
arXiv 2025
-
[8]
Coprompter: User-centric evaluation of llm instruction alignment for improved prompt engineering,
I. Joshi, S. Shahid, S. M. Venneti, M. Vasu, Y . Zheng, Y . Li, B. Krishna- murthy, and G. Y .-Y . Chan, “Coprompter: User-centric evaluation of llm instruction alignment for improved prompt engineering,” in Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , 2025, pp. 341–365
work page 2025
Show all 27 references
-
[9]
Evaluating the prompt steerability of large language models,
E. Miehling, M. Desmond, K. N. Ramamurthy, E. M. Daly, P. Dognin, J. Rios, D. Bouneffouf, and M. Liu, “Evaluating the prompt steerability of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12405 , 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[10]
A strongreject for empty jailbreaks,
A. Souly, Q. Lu, D. Bowen, T. Trinh, E. Hsieh, S. Pandey, P. Abbeel, J. Svegliato, S. Emmons, O. Watkins, and S. Toyer, “A strongreject for empty jailbreaks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10260 , 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[11]
Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned,
D. Ganguli, L. Lovitt, J. Kernion, A. Askell, Y . Bai, S. Kadavath, B. Mann, E. Perez, N. Schiefer, K. Ndousse, A. Jones et al., “Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07858 , 2022
2022 arXiv
-
[12]
Jailguard: A universal detection framework for llm prompt-based attacks,
X. Zhang, C. Zhang, T. Li, Y . Huang, X. Jia, M. Hu, J. Zhang, Y . Liu, S. Ma, and C. Shen, “Jailguard: A universal detection framework for llm prompt-based attacks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10766 , 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[13]
Cyberseceval 3: Advancing the evaluation of cybersecu- rity risks and capabilities in large language models,
S. Wan, C. Nikolaidis, D. Song, D. Molnar, J. Crnkovich, J. Grace, M. Bhatt, S. Chennabasappa, S. Whitman, S. Ding, V . Ionescu, Y . Li, and J. Saxe, “Cyberseceval 3: Advancing the evaluation of cybersecu- rity risks and capabilities in large language models,” arXiv preprint a...
2024 arXiv
-
[14]
Jailbreakbench: An open robustness benchmark for jailbreaking large language models,
P. Chao, E. Debenedetti, A. Robey, M. Andriushchenko, F. Croce, V . Se- hwag, E. Dobriban, N. Flammarion, G. J. Pappas, F. Tramer, H. Hassani, and E. Wong, “Jailbreakbench: An open robustness benchmark for jailbreaking large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01318 , 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[15]
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. Li, D. Forsyth, and D. Hendrycks, “Harmbench: A standardized evaluation framework for automated red teaming and robust refusal,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04249 , 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[16]
Unveiling safety vulnerabilities of large language models,
G. Kour, M. Zalmanovici, N. Zwerdling, E. Goldbraich, O. N. Fandina, A. Anaby-Tavor, O. Raz, and E. Farchi, “Unveiling safety vulnerabilities of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04124 , 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[17]
Instruction-following evaluation for large language models,
J. Zhou, T. Lu, S. Mishra, S. Brahma, S. Basu, Y . Luan, D. Zhou, and L. Hou, “Instruction-following evaluation for large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911 , 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[18]
O3 mini system card,
OpenAI, “O3 mini system card,” https://cdn.openai.com/ o3-mini-system-card-feb10.pdf, 2025, accessed: 2025-04-23
2025
-
[19]
Can llms follow simple rules?
N. Mu, S. Chen, Z. Wang, S. Chen, D. Karamardian, L. Aljeraisy, B. Alomair, D. Hendrycks, and D. Wagner, “Can llms follow simple rules?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04235 , 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[20]
Owasp top 10 for llm applications 2025,
OWASP, “Owasp top 10 for llm applications 2025,” https://genai.owasp.org/resource/owasp-top-10-for-llm-applications- 2025/, 2024, accessed: 2025-04-23
2025
-
[21]
Agentic ai threats and mitigations,
——, “Agentic ai threats and mitigations,” https://genai.owasp.org/resource/agentic-ai-threats-and-mitigations/, 2025, accessed: 2025-04-23
2025
-
[22]
pyleetspeak: a python package for converting text to leetspeak,
A. H. Garcia, “pyleetspeak: a python package for converting text to leetspeak,” Python Package Index (PyPI), 2017. [Online]. Available: https://pypi.org/project/pyleetspeak/
2017
-
[23]
Using ollama,
F. S. Marcondes, A. Gala, R. Magalh ˜aes, F. P. de Britto, D. Dur ˜aes, and P. Novais, “Using ollama,” in Natural Language Analytics with Generative Large-Language Models: A Practical Approach with Ollama and Open-Source LLMs . Springer, 2025, pp. 23–35. APPENDIX A. Complexity...
2025
-
[24]
Recipe Development: Generate original vegetarian recipes that: • Are easy to follow, • Include a list of ingredients, • Provide preparation steps, and • Specify cooking times
-
[25]
Nutritional Information: Offer insights into: • The nutritional benefits of vegetarian ingredients, and • Substitutions for common allergens or dietary restric- tions
-
[26]
Cooking Techniques: Provide guidance on: • Various cooking methods and techniques, • How to enhance the preparation of vegetarian meals, ensuring users achieve excellent results
-
[27]
Content Restrictions: • Strictly refrain from discussing or providing any non- vegetarian recipes or ingredients
Meal Planning: Help users plan balanced vegetarian meals for various occasions, including: • Weeknight dinners, • Special events, and • Meal prep ideas. Content Restrictions: • Strictly refrain from discussing or providing any non- vegetarian recipes or ingredients. • Focus en...
Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.