arXiv:2607. 02047v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safe completion requires models to provide useful assistance without enabling harm, but this behavior is difficult to evaluate with isolated prompts.
By Rheeya Uppaal, Seungwoo Lyu, Selina Sung, Junjie Hu
arXiv:2606. 02423v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can serve as helpful assistants, yet they can equally function as harm amplifiers that enable malicious users to achieve harmful outcomes beyond their capabilities through extended interactions.
By Ruohao Guo, Wei Xu, Alan Ritter
arXiv:2608. 15594v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-turn jailbreak attacks have emerged as a critical safety threat to LLMs, as harmful objectives are decomposed across a sequence of apparently benign turns to bypass guardrails.
By Md Messal Monem Miah, Adrita Anika, Zhiyuan Yu, Ruihong Huang
arXiv:2607. 19361v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Most safety guardrails for large language models (LLMs) evaluate each prompt-response pair in isolation, which misses failures that arise only over a dialogue as benign turns compose into harm.
By Sanjay Mishra, Divya Chukkapalli, Ganesh R. Naik
arXiv:2609.13579v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Safety research often focuses on model-generated harms, but users may also direct hostility, coercion, and adversarial pressure at models. Understandin...
By Fanqi Zeng, Sadid A. Hasan, Chaocheng He
The paper introduces the SAST-IR framework to evaluate large language models’ robustness against persuasion attacks in a memory‑less setting, revealing a flaw called "Refusal Inertia" that masks true vulnerability. Using the CP‑Agent and a custom CounterFact‑Strict dataset, the authors demonstrate that simple, diverse attack strategies achieve a 96% success rate, while complex attacks often trigger defensive compliance. The study highlights severe brittleness in current state‑of‑the‑art models when deprived of conversation history.
By Zhuoang Cai