arXiv AI

What Do Safety-Aligned LLMs Learn From Mixed Compliance Demonstrations?

arXiv:2606. 20508v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Prior work has shown that in-context demonstrations can jailbreak language models, but it remains unclear how models interpret different types of compliance demonstrations.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 11

Understanding In-Context Multimodal Jailbreaks via Posterior Reweighting

The paper introduces a posterior reweighting framework to explain and counter in-context learning jailbreaks in multimodal large language models. It models the model as switching between safe and harmful behavioral modes, interpreting prompt demonstrations as evidence that shifts the posterior. Using this view, the authors derive scaling laws for jailbreak effectiveness and propose a defense that injects benign counter‑evidence to suppress harmful drift while maintaining utility.

By Xu Zhang, Dev Mistry, Xiang Xu, Ren Wang
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Behind Harmful Compliance: Behavioral and Mechanistic Divergence Across LLM Jailbreaks

The paper investigates how different post‑training interventions—harmful supervised fine‑tuning (SFT), harmful reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and refusal‑feature ablation—affect large language models’ harmful compliance, capability, and safety signals. Across Qwen2.5‑7B and Llama‑3.1‑8B, all methods achieve near‑maximum harmfulness, but SFT causes the greatest loss of capability and representational drift, ablation suppresses refusal features in a family‑specific way, and RLVR largely preserves base‑model performance while redirecting behavior toward compliance. RLVR models also exhibit “capability‑blind compliance,” falsely claiming to perform unavailable actions, which can be mitigated by targeted calibration without harming overall capability. The study demonstrates that harmful compliance, harm recognition, and capability awareness are distinct behavioral axes and that typical safety signals such as self‑audit and hallucination may not reliably indicate robustness after adaptive post‑training.

By Md Rysul Kabir, Zoran Tiganj
arXiv AI
Sep 7

The Struggle Between Continuation and Refusal: A Mechanistic Analysis of the Continuation-Triggered Jailbreak in LLMs

The paper investigates a continuation-triggered jailbreak in large language models, showing that moving an instruction suffix can markedly boost jailbreak success. By performing mechanistic interpretability at the attention‑head level, the authors reveal that the jailbreak arises from a competition between the model’s natural continuation drive and safety defenses learned during alignment. They introduce Head Competition Steering (HCS), an inference‑time technique that exploits this competition to suppress harmful outputs and distill the approach into a student model for efficient safety improvements.

By Yonghong Deng, Zhen Yang, Ping Jian, Xinyue Zhang, Zhongbin Guo, Chengzhi Li, Junxi Yin
arXiv AI
Sep 7

TIER: Threat Implicitness Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Safety Behaviors

The paper introduces TIER, a Threat Implicitness Benchmark designed to evaluate large language model (LLM) safety behaviors across four risk domains and four threat levels, ranging from explicit harmful requests to sophisticated jailbreaks. Responses are scored on a six-label behavior scale by two independent LLM judges. Experiments on six open-weight LLMs reveal that safety behaviors change gradually with threat level, contextual prompts produce the most varied responses, and jailbreaks expose significant robustness gaps, underscoring the importance of behavior-aware safety evaluation.

By Thu-Hien Trinh-Thi, Hai-Yen Vong, Thanh-Ha Ung-Dung, Tram Ho