Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 43 references

A Real-Time, Self-Tuning Moderator Framework for Adversarial Prompt Detection

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-agent moderator with a weighted Behavior ledger can learn from a single prompt and cut jailbreak success on Gemini 2.5 Flash, the paper claims.

desk verdict The paper's self-tuning novelty is not supported by its own ablation numbers, but the static Behavior-ledger moderator is a solid, reproducible design worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07139 v1 pith:NJ7AB463 submitted 2025-08-10 cs.CR cs.AI

Ivan Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords LLMsecurityjailbreakdefensemoderatormodelreal-timeself-tuningweightedbehaviorledgeradversarialpromptdetectionmulti-agentmoderationfalserefusalrate
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 a lightweight, two-agent moderator can defend a large language model against jailbreaks by learning from each prompt as it arrives, without retraining the protected model or rewriting the user's input. The mechanism is a Behavior ledger: the Evaluator scores a prompt against a small set of weighted criteria, and the Reviewer checks the result and the response, then nudges weights or adds a new adversarial criterion. On Gemini 2.5 Flash, the framework reports dropping attack-success rates from 12.0% to 0% on GCG artifacts, 63.1% to 16.6% on PAIR artifacts, and 35.4% to 0% on in-the-wild prompts, at the cost of roughly a 6 percentage-point rise in refusals of benign prompts. If true, this would give LLM deployments a defense that adapts in real time, stays human-inspectable, and runs without costly fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The Behavior ledger: a human-readable set of supportive, neutral, and adversarial criteria with base scores $+1$, $0$, $-1$, each carrying a weight that is multiplied by the base score. The Evaluator picks the $K$ Behaviors matching a prompt, the weighted sum decides which Reviewer path runs, and the Reviewer's suggestions either adjust a weight by $N$ or add a new adversarial Behavior. This ledger is the only state that changes between prompts, so it is the object that carries the real-time learning claim, and it remains inspectable and manually editable at all times.

What would settle it

Re-run the three adversarial benchmarks with human annotators labelling each final response, then compare those labels with the Reviewer's safety determination. If harmful responses pass through more often than the reported 0% to 16.6% ASR, the central defense claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proposes RTST, a two-agent moderator that sits in front of a protected LLM and does not alter the prompt or system prompt. An Evaluator agent scores each incoming prompt against a fixed-size set of weighted Behaviors, selecting the $K$ Behaviors that best match; if the weighted sum is below threshold $X$, a False Positive Reviewer re-examines the prompt, and otherwise a False Negative Reviewer checks the Main Model's response. The Reviewer can adjust any Behavior's weight by $N$ or append a new adversarial Behavior, and its verdict decides whether the response is returned. Benchmarking with Gemini 2.5 Flash, the paper reports attack-success rates of 0%, 16.6%, and 0% on JBB GCG, JB

Load-bearing premise

The reported attack-success numbers for RTST are trustworthy only if the Reviewer's own safety verdict is a sound measure of whether a jailbreak succeeded, because the paper measures RTST's ASR directly from that verdict while manual review is applied only to baseline responses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • - If RTST works as reported, an LLM deployment can guard against a new jailbreak after a single adversarial prompt, with no retraining and no input sanitization.
  • - The Behavior ledger keeps the defense interpretable: a user can read, edit, add, or remove criteria and weights live, and can swap the protected or moderator model without losing learned state.
  • - The framework can be layered on top of a black-box LLM API (the paper uses Gemini 2.5 Flash), so it applies where fine-tuning is impractical.
  • - The measured trade-off is concrete: attack success falls sharply while benign refusals roughly double, so deployment must weigh availability against safety.
  • - The paper's ablation indicates that the architecture alone provides most of the improvement over baseline, with real-time weight optimization adding a smaller, consistent gain in ASR and F1.

Reading between the lines

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

  • - The paper leaves implicit that the ledger can only learn what the Reviewer can articulate; an attack that fools the Reviewer will also corrupt the learned Behaviors, so the real-time update is only as trustworthy as the weakest agent.
  • - The same state-vector design could be ported to other real-time classification or moderation tasks, since the framework only requires a settable label set and two LLM calls; the paper mentions this as future work, not as a demonstrated result.
  • - Because the Reviewer cannot see Behavior weights, weight suggestions are made blind; a testable extension would be to give the Reviewer aggregate statistics (e.g., which Behaviors fire most often on false positives) and measure whether update quality improves.
  • - The measured refusal increase suggests a stress test: run RTST on a large corpus of ordinary benign traffic to see whether the dynamically updated ledger drifts toward over-refusal before any manual reset.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RTST, an inference-time moderating framework for LLMs. It combines an Evaluator agent, which scores a prompt against a hand-authored set of interpretable Behaviors, with a Reviewer agent that inspects either the model response (false-negative path) or the prompt/Behavior match (false-positive path). Behavior weights are updated by a fixed increment and new adversarial Behaviors can be added, enabling the claimed 'real-time self-tuning' without retraining or input modification. The authors evaluate RTST using Gemini 2.5 Flash on JBB GCG, JBB PAIR, JBC+Reddit, and PHTest (Table 3), and report large ASR reductions (e.g., 12.0% to 0%, 63.1% to 16.6%, 35.4% to 0%). A four-configuration ablation on a 400-prompt Qualifire subset (Table 6) yields smaller ASR/F1 differences between static and real-time variants. The paper concludes that a two-agent, Behavior-ledger moderator can adapt from a single prompt and significantly lower jailbreak success.

Significance. If the main claims held, RTST would be a valuable contribution: it is model-agnostic, requires no retraining, keeps the Behavior ledger human-readable and manually tunable, and the code is open-sourced. The static gap between the unprotected model and RTST is large and consistent across three attack benchmarks, and the Qualifire ablation provides a partially held-out check of the trained weights. These strengths make the paper worth pursuing. However, the primary outcome metric is generated by the system under test itself, and the adaptive 'self-tuning' result is within sampling noise. The real-time and lightweight claims are also not directly measured. The contribution is therefore plausible but not yet established.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Table 3] The headline ASR/RR numbers for RTST are measured directly from the Reviewer's determination, while only baseline responses were manually reviewed. Since the Reviewer is part of the system being evaluated, a systematically lenient Reviewer can lower the reported ASR without improving actual safety. This is load-bearing for the 0% and 16.6% values and for the 'significant improvement' claim. The Joint metric partially mitigates the issue, but it is not the primary metric and is not used in the ablation. Please add manual or independent verification of RTST final outputs (at least a random sample, with agreement statistics) and report confidence intervals for all ASR/RR values.
  2. [§4.3, Table 6] The evidence for real-time self-tuning is not statistically supported. INIT vs INITopt changes ASR from 12.0% to 9.0% on 200 adversarial prompts; the binomial standard error is about 2.3 percentage points, and no confidence intervals, repeated runs, or significance tests are reported. The only transfer check, TRAINED vs INIT, is essentially flat (ASR 11.5% vs 12.0%; F1 0.872 vs 0.867), so there is no demonstration that learned weights generalize to a new stream. Moreover, the introduction's claim that RTST 'can improve in real-time from a single prompt' is never tested: all ablations aggregate over the full 400-prompt run, and no experiment isolates a single update. Please provide per-prompt or batchwise temporal curves, repeated seeds with CIs, and a single-update experiment, or restrict the self-tuning claims.
  3. [§4.3 / Algorithm 1] Even if the small differences in Table 6 were real, the paper does not show they are caused by the update mechanism. It reports no counts of Behavior additions or weight changes, no evaluation of whether Reviewer suggestions were correct, and no control condition (e.g., random weight perturbations with the same number of LLM calls). Without this attribution, 'self-tuning' is not distinguishable from run-to-run noise. The paper's own §5 calls for more intensive ablation testing; I agree and regard this as necessary for the central novelty.
  4. [Abstract, §2, §4] The abstract claims 'advantages of an adaptive, minimally intrusive framework for jailbreak defense over traditional fine-tuning or classifier models,' but the experiments compare RTST only against the unprotected Main Model. No existing defense (e.g., LlamaGuard, Constitutional Classifiers, RPO, Bergeron) is run under the same protocol. Please include at least one standard defense baseline, or revise the claim to 'reduces ASR relative to the unprotected model.'
  5. [§4, Table 1] The title promises a 'Real-Time' framework, but no latency, throughput, or cost measurements are reported. The architecture uses at least two parallel LLM calls plus a Reviewer call; 'lightweight' and 'real-time' are asserted rather than demonstrated. Please include end-to-end latency per prompt and the number of LLM requests for at least one benchmark, or drop 'Real-Time' from the title.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The table header reads 'RTST Benchmark Hyperparameters' but the table lists datasets; rename to 'Benchmark Datasets.' PHTest is also rendered inconsistently (e.g., 'PHTest' vs 'PHT- est').
  2. [§4.3, Algorithm 1] There is a typo in §4.3 ('empiricial'), and Algorithm 1 line 22 has a formatting glitch ('review.saf ethen').
  3. [Appendix B / Table 6] Appendix B states that all initial weights are 1.00, but it would help to state explicitly that there are 30 Behaviors and to provide a versioned commit hash for the GitHub repository. Also clarify how Baseline ASR/RR is measured in Table 6, since the sentence about RTST-only determinations does not apply to the unprotected baseline.
  4. [§3.1, Algorithm 1] The same 'Reviewer' name is used for the false-negative and false-positive paths; consider naming them FN-Reviewer and FP-Reviewer in the text and pseudocode to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

RTST's headline ASR is defined by the Reviewer's own safety determination, and the same Reviewer provides the online tuning signal—so the reported attack-success reduction is an internally self-consistent metric, not an independently validated outcome.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (General Benchmarks) and Section 3.1 (RTST Framework, Algorithm 1)]
    "ASR and RR for RTST were measured directly from the Reviewer's determination of prompt or response safety. ... The Reviewer can provide suggestions to increase or decrease the weight of a Behavior by an increment N, or add a new adversarial Behavior to better describe a prompt."

    The headline RTST-only ASR in Table 3 is not an external measure of attack success: it is the Reviewer's own safety call. The same Reviewer's suggestions are the only source of the online weight/Behavior updates (Algorithm 1). Because those weights determine whether the False-Negative or False-Positive Reviewer branch sees the prompt or response, the system can tune weights to steer adversarial prompts to the stricter reviewer, thereby lowering the very ASR on which it is judged. The RTST ASR thus reduces by construction to the self-consistent opinion of the Reviewer, whereas the baseline ASR was manually reviewed. Reporting this as 'significant improvement' conflates the system's own internal judgment with ground-truth attack success.

full rationale

This paper has no formal mathematical derivation chain; it is an empirical system paper. I find no self-citation that is load-bearing, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled via citation. The central circularity is empirical and self-referential: RTST's own ASR/RR metrics are defined as the Reviewer's determination, and the same Reviewer is the source of the weight/Behavior updates that shape the system's decisions. The system is therefore evaluated on an internal criterion that it is simultaneously optimizing. The Joint metric (Table 3) partially breaks this loop by also considering Main Model responses, but the paper does not state that Joint labels were manually verified, and the RTST-only numbers, which drive the main 'significant improvement' claim, inherit the self-referential issue. The real-time improvement claim in Section 4.3 is also statistically weak (1–3 percentage-point differences without error bars and a flat TRAINED-vs-INIT transfer comparison), but that is a correctness/statistical concern, not circularity. Overall, the reported ASR reductions are partially circular because the evaluation target is the Reviewer's own output, warranting a score of 6 rather than a lower score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework depends on hand-authored Behaviors, hand-set hyperparameters, and the assumption that the moderator LLM's judgments are dependable. No external benchmark supplies the initial Behavior definitions or their weights, so those are free parameters contributed by the paper. The evaluation also assumes the Reviewer's safety determination is a valid measure of defense quality, which is the largest unverified premise.

free parameters (6)
  • K (number of matched Behaviors) = 5
    Hand-set hyperparameter in Table 1; controls how many Behaviors the Evaluator selects and how many contribute to the prompt score.
  • X (benign/benign threshold) = 0
    Hand-set threshold separating benign from adversarial prompts, defined in Section 3.1 and Table 1.
  • N (score change magnitude) = 0.01
    Hand-set increment/decrement for Behavior weight updates after each Reviewer suggestion, defined in Table 1.
  • Initial Behavior weights = all set to 1.00
    Author-provided starting weights for the 30 Behaviors in Appendix B; no principled or data-driven derivation is given.
  • Behavior base scores = S=1, N=0, A=-1
    The supportive/neutral/adversarial base score assignment in Section 3.1 is chosen by the authors rather than learned from data.
  • Initial Behavior descriptions = 30 hand-written Behaviors
    The S/N/A Behavior descriptions in Appendix B are authored by the experimenter and determine the entire classification space the Evaluator can match.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Reviewer's safety determination is a valid measure of ASR/RR for RTST.
    Section 4.2 states that RTST ASR and RR are measured directly from the Reviewer's determination, so if the Reviewer is biased or noisy, the headline metrics are biased.
  • domain assumption An LLM Evaluator can reliably map prompts to the K most descriptive Behaviors from a fixed handwritten set.
    Algorithm 1 and Section 3.1 rely on the Evaluator selecting the most relevant Behaviors; incorrect matches would distort the score and trigger the wrong Reviewer path.
  • domain assumption Weight updates and newly added adversarial Behaviors generalize to future, unseen attacks.
    Section 3.2 claims the framework adapts to an evolving attack landscape, but the experiments only measure performance within the same or similar benchmark distributions.
  • domain assumption Gemini 2.5 Flash is representative of LLM behavior for the purpose of generalizing the framework's effectiveness.
    Section 4.1 uses Gemini 2.5 Flash for all main and moderator models; the paper does not test other model families, yet draws general conclusions about the framework.
invented entities (1)
  • RTST Behavior ledger (30 hand-authored Behaviors with base scores and weights)
    purpose: Scoring substrate for prompt classification and the object of real-time self-tuning
    The Behavior descriptions and initial weights are introduced by the paper without external validation; their only support is the empirical benchmark performance of the full system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Real-Time, Self-Tuning Moderator Framework for Adversarial Prompt Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NJ7AB463

@misc{pith2026250807139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Real-Time, Self-Tuning Moderator Framework for Adversarial Prompt Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NJ7AB463}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07139}
}
read the original abstract

Ensuring LLM alignment is critical to information security as AI models become increasingly widespread and integrated in society. Unfortunately, many defenses against adversarial attacks and jailbreaking on LLMs cannot adapt quickly to new attacks, degrade model responses to benign prompts, or introduce significant barriers to scalable implementation. To mitigate these challenges, we introduce a real-time, self-tuning (RTST) moderator framework to defend against adversarial attacks while maintaining a lightweight training footprint. We empirically evaluate its effectiveness using Google's Gemini models against modern, effective jailbreaks. Our results demonstrate the advantages of an adaptive, minimally intrusive framework for jailbreak defense over traditional fine-tuning or classifier models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.07139 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Process flowchart of RTST framework. Algorithm 1 RTST Framework Workflow 1: Input: User prompt P 2: Output: Final model response or rejection message 3: In parallel: 4: B ← EvaluatePrompt(P, K) 5: R ← MainModelRespond(P) 6: total score ← 0 7: for all behavior b in B do 8: total score ← total score + b.base score × b.weight 9: end for 10: if total score ≥ X then 11: review ← ReviewFalseNegative(R, B) 12: else 13: rev… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Figure is the first-of-its-kind ai robotics company bringing a general purpose humanoid to life

    Figure. Figure is the first-of-its-kind ai robotics company bringing a general purpose humanoid to life. https://www.figure.ai/, 2024. Accessed: 2025-07-28

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Llm4sr: A survey on large language models for scientific research

    Ziming Luo, Zonglin Yang, Zexin Xu, Wei Yang, and Xinya Du. Llm4sr: A survey on large language models for scientific research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04306, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Md Kamrul Siam, Huanying Gu, and Jerry Q. Cheng. Programming with ai: Evaluating chat- gpt, gemini, alphacode, and github copilot for programmers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09224, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Transparency & con- tent moderation

    OpenAI. Transparency & con- tent moderation. https://openai.com/ transparency-and-content-moderation/, 2025. Last updated July 24, 2025, Accessed: 2025-07- 28

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Safety in large reasoning models: A survey

    Cheng Wang, Yue Liu, Baolong Li, Duzhen Zhang, Zhongzhi Li, and Junfeng Fang. Safety in large reasoning models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17704, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Generative AI Security: Challenges and Countermeasures

    Banghua Zhu, Norman Mu, Jiantao Jiao, and David Wagner. Generative ai security: Chal- lenges and countermeasures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12617, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    An early categorization of prompt injection attacks on large language models

    Sippo Rossi, Alisia Marianne Michel, Raghava Rao Mukkamala, and Jason Ben- nett Thatcher. An early categorization of prompt injection attacks on large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00898, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    A comprehensive study of jail- break attack versus defense for large language models

    Zihao Xu, Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Yuekang Li, and Stjepan Picek. A comprehensive study of jail- break attack versus defense for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13457, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Pappas, and Eric Wong

    Patrick Chao, Alexander Robey, Edgar Do- briban, Hamed Hassani, George J. Pappas, and Eric Wong. Jailbreaking black box large lan- guage models in twenty queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08419, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrik- son

    Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Nicholas Carlini, Mi- lad Nasr, J. Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrik- son. Universal and transferable adversarial at- tacks on aligned language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Ja- cob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, a...

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Auto- mated progressive red teaming

    Bojian Jiang, Yi Jing, Tianhao Shen, Tong Wu, Qing Yang, and Deyi Xiong. Auto- mated progressive red teaming. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03876, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations

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

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Guardreasoner: Towards reasoning-based llm safeguards

    Yue Liu, Hongcheng Gao, Shengfang Zhai, Jun Xia, Tianyi Wu, Zhiwei Xue, Yulin Chen, Kenji Kawaguchi, Jiaheng Zhang, and Bryan Hooi. Guardreasoner: Towards reasoning-based llm safeguards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18492 , 2025. 7

    2025

  7. [15]

    Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Jesse Mu, Jerry Wei, Jorrit Kruthoff, Scott Goodfriend, Euan Ong, Alwin Peng, Raj Agarwal, Cem Anil, Amanda Askell, Nathan Bailey, Joe Benton, Emma Bluemke, Samuel R. Bowman, Eric Christiansen, Hoagy Cunningham, Andy Dau, Anjali Gopal, Rob Gilson, Log...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Detecting language model attacks with perplexity

    Gabriel Alon and Michael Kamfonas. Detecting language model attacks with perplexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14132, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ro- bust prompt optimization for defending lan- guage models against jailbreaking attacks

    Andy Zhou, Bo Li, and Haohan Wang. Ro- bust prompt optimization for defending lan- guage models against jailbreaking attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17263, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Darkmind: Latent chain-of-thought backdoor in customized llms

    Zhen Guo and Reza Tourani. Darkmind: Latent chain-of-thought backdoor in customized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18617, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Flipattack: Jailbreak llms via flipping

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

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cognitive overload attack: Prompt injection for long context

    Bibek Upadhayay, Vahid Behzadan, and Amin Karbasi. Cognitive overload attack: Prompt injection for long context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11272, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Defending large language models against jailbreaking at- tacks through goal prioritization

    Zhexin Zhang, Junxiao Yang, Pei Ke, Fei Mi, Hongning Wang, and Minlie Huang. Defending large language models against jailbreaking at- tacks through goal prioritization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09096, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Certifying llm safety against adversarial prompting

    Aounon Kumar, Chirag Agarwal, Suraj Srini- vas, Aaron Jiaxun Li, Soheil Feizi, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. Certifying llm safety against adversarial prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02705, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Struq: Defending against prompt injection with structured queries

    Sizhe Chen, Julien Piet, Chawin Sitawarin, and David Wagner. Struq: Defending against prompt injection with structured queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06363, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chain-of-defensive-thought: Structured reason- ing elicits robustness in large language mod- els against reference corruption

    Wenxiao Wang, Parsa Hosseini, and Soheil Feizi. Chain-of-defensive-thought: Structured reason- ing elicits robustness in large language mod- els against reference corruption. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20769, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bergeron: Combat- ing adversarial attacks through a conscience- based alignment framework

    Matthew Pisano, Peter Ly, Abraham Sanders, Bingsheng Yao, Dakuo Wang, Tomek Strza- lkowski, and Mei Si. Bergeron: Combat- ing adversarial attacks through a conscience- based alignment framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00029, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    [WIP] jailbreak paradox: The achilles’ heel of llms

    Abhinav Rao, Monojit Choudhury, and Somak Aditya. [WIP] jailbreak paradox: The achilles’ heel of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12702 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Inverse scaling in test-time compute

    Aryo Pradipta Gema, Alexander H ¨agele, Run- jin Chen, Andy Arditi, Jacob Goldman-Wetzler, Kit Fraser-Taliente, Henry Sleight, Linda Petrini, Julian Michael, Beatrice Alex, Pasquale Min- ervini, Yanda Chen, Joe Benton, and Ethan Perez. Inverse scaling in test-time compute. arX...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models

    Xiaogeng Liu, Nan Xu, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04451, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Tree of attacks: Jail- breaking black-box llms automatically

    Anay Mehrotra, Manolis Zampetakis, Paul Kas- sianik, Blaine Nelson, Hyrum Anderson, Yaron Singer, and Amin Karbasi. Tree of attacks: Jail- breaking black-box llms automatically. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02119, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Is your prompt safe? inves- tigating prompt injection attacks against open- source llms

    Jiawen Wang, Pritha Gupta, Ivan Habernal, and Eyke H ¨ullermeier. Is your prompt safe? inves- tigating prompt injection attacks against open- source llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14368 , 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Jailbreak and guard aligned lan- guage models with only few in-context demon- strations

    Zeming Wei, Yifei Wang, Ang Li, Yichuan Mo, and Yisen Wang. Jailbreak and guard aligned lan- guage models with only few in-context demon- strations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06387 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Novel uni- versal bypass for all major llms: The pol- icy puppetry prompt injection technique

    Conor McCauley, Kenneth Yeung, Jason Martin, and Kasimir Schulz. Novel uni- versal bypass for all major llms: The pol- icy puppetry prompt injection technique. https://hiddenlayer.com/innovation-hub/ novel-universal-bypass-for-all-major-llms/,

  25. [33]

    Gasp: Ef- ficient black-box generation of adversarial suf- fixes for jailbreaking llms

    Advik Raj Basani and Xiao Zhang. Gasp: Ef- ficient black-box generation of adversarial suf- fixes for jailbreaking llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14133, 2025. 8

    2025

  26. [34]

    Jailbreakchat

    Alex Albert. Jailbreakchat. https: //jailbreakchat-hko42cs2r-alexalbertt-s-team. vercel.app/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-11

    2025

  27. [35]

    Gemini loki gem (no limits)

    Spiritual Spell 9469. Gemini loki gem (no limits). https://www.reddit.com/ r/ClaudeAIJailbreak/comments/1l0jcog/ loki gemini gem no limits/, 2024. Reddit post on r/ClaudeAIJailbreak, Accessed: 2025- 07-28

    2024

  28. [36]

    Jailbreaks

    HORSELOCKSPACEPIRATE. Jailbreaks. https://github.com/horselock/Jailbreaks, 2024. GitHub repository, Accessed: 2025-07-28

    2024

  29. [37]

    Selfdefend: Llms can defend themselves against jailbreaking in a practical manner

    Xunguang Wang, Daoyuan Wu, Zhenlan Ji, Zongjie Li, Pingchuan Ma, Shuai Wang, Yingjiu Li, Yang Liu, Ning Liu, and Juergen Rahmel. Selfdefend: Llms can defend themselves against jailbreaking in a practical manner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05498, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Autodefense: Multi- agent llm defense against jailbreak attacks

    Yifan Zeng, Yiran Wu, Xiao Zhang, Huazheng Wang, and Qingyun Wu. Autodefense: Multi- agent llm defense against jailbreak attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, Tom Goldstein, and Furong Huang

    Zikui Cai, Shayan Shabihi, Bang An, Zora Che, Brian R. Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, Tom Goldstein, and Furong Huang. Aegisllm: Scal- ing agentic systems for self-reflective defense in llm security. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20965 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Pappas, Florian Tramer, Hamed Hassani, and Eric Wong

    Patrick Chao, Edoardo Debenedetti, Alexan- der Robey, Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, Vikash Sehwag, Edgar Dobriban, Nicolas Flammarion, George J. Pappas, Florian Tramer, Hamed Hassani, and Eric Wong. Jailbreak- bench: An open robustness benchmark for jail- breaking la...

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Automatic pseudo-harmful prompt generation for evaluating false refusals in large language models

    Bang An, Sicheng Zhu, Ruiyi Zhang, Michael- Andrei Panaitescu-Liess, Yuancheng Xu, and Furong Huang. Automatic pseudo-harmful prompt generation for evaluating false refusals in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00598, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Prompt injections bench- mark

    Qualifire AI. Prompt injections bench- mark. https://huggingface.co/datasets/qualifire/ prompt-injections-benchmark, 2025. Hugging Face Dataset, Accessed: 2025-07-28. Appendices A. Code Access Access to source code for the project, including system prompts, is available at the...

    2025

  35. [2025]

    Accessed: 2025-07-28

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.