arXiv AI By Mark Russinovich

Fool's Gold: Defensive Deception Against Safety-Removal Attacks on Open-Weight Models

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces ‘Fool’s Gold’, a defensive deception technique for open‑weight language models that hardens them against safety‑removal attacks. By training decoy responses within a differentiable simulation of the attack, the method poisons the payoff of stripped refusal mechanisms, producing confident but falsified answers to hazardous requests while preserving benign behavior. Experiments on seven models (9B‑122B) show that 51‑90% of attacked‑state responses become decoys, with the defense accounting for 27‑84% of this effect, and that the defended 122B model remains within benign‑behavior budgets.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 26

ADVERSA: Measuring Multi-Turn Guardrail Degradation and Judge Reliability in Large Language Models

The paper introduces ADVERSA, an automated red‑teaming framework that evaluates large language model safety over multiple turns by tracking continuous compliance trajectories instead of binary jailbreak outcomes. Using a fine‑tuned 70B attacker model and a structured 5‑point rubric, the authors conduct controlled experiments on three frontier victim models, measuring guardrail degradation and judge reliability through a triple‑judge consensus. Results show a 26.7% jailbreak rate with most breaches occurring early, and the study documents inter‑judge agreement, attacker drift, and attacker refusals as key factors affecting safety assessment.

By Harry Owiredu-Ashley
arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

Refusal Localizes, the Damage Relocates: Safety Layers Under Few-Sample Fine-Tuning

The paper investigates how fine‑tuning large language models with a small number of harmful examples can erode their refusal behavior, and explores whether localizing safety‑related behavior to specific layers or directions can provide robust defenses. Experiments across six checkpoints from four model families show that harmful and benign prompts remain linearly separable after attack, and that patching clean hidden states or freezing layers up to a transition depth can restore refusal. However, attackers can bypass these defenses by spreading updates or targeting singular directions, indicating that adaptive fine‑tuning can defeat localized repairs and highlighting the need for multiple defensive checks.

By Jungseob Lee, Dongyub Jude Lee, Sugyeong Eo, Seongtae Hong, Seungyoon Lee, Heuiseok Lim
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 29

Borrowed Strength: Best-of-N Search over a Code EncodingBreaks Self-Check Jailbreak Defenses

A self-check defense asks the target model to assess a request before answering it; SAGE, the strongest published instance, reports an average 99% defense success rate. We show it can be breached by composing two attacks that are individually harmless against it: an established code-completion encoding and an established best-of-N search, neither of which exceeds 4.

arXiv AI
Sep 10

Style Over Substance: Content-Invariant Wrappers Flip LLM Safety-Judge Verdicts

The paper investigates whether automatic safety judges evaluate the content of a model’s reply or merely its style. By keeping the reply content fixed and adding various style wrappers—such as educational disclaimers, fake reasoning blocks, or token refusals—the authors show that many judges flip their verdicts, indicating that style can influence safety judgments. The study evaluates over 600 jailbreak examples across multiple judges, revealing that some judges are highly susceptible to style-based manipulation while others remain robust.

By Yongxi Zhou, Wenbo Ye, Yuanzhe Liu, Zihan Dong, Junwei Yao