Safety classifiers deployed in production operate under a stationarity assumption that fails silently: when input distributions drift, accuracy degrades with no error signal until ground-truth labels arrive. We present an online monitor that detects distributional shift in classifier scores via a sliding-window KS statistic with empirically calibrated alarm thresholds. In a pre-registered factorial evaluation (4 classifiers $\times$ 5 shift conditions $\times$ 20 seeds $\times$ 2 window sizes; 800 cells), the monitor achieves 86.6% valid detection (mean latency 39.5 steps) across synthetic-onset, real-jailbreak, and adversarial regimes; a classifier $\times$ shift interaction ($η^2 = 0.185$) shows that monitoring must be tuned per classifier. Attempting to recover post-detection coverage via weighted conformal prediction exposes a failure mode: density-ratio estimation collapses for generative classifiers because logistic regression separates source from target perfectly in 3584-4096-dimensional embedding space, clipping all importance weights to zero; projecting to $\leq 32$ dimensions restores coverage. We then extend the framework to gradient-based evasion and give the first threat-model characterisation of score-disagreement monitoring as a canary. We falsify three assumptions: that architectural diversity drives the signal (false, $η^2 = 0.011$), that it is generic out-of-distribution detection (false, GCG-specific, $p < 10^{-12}$), and that an adaptive attacker can suppress it (false while the canary is confident). We derive the exact security boundary, a confidence-gated equilibrium at which a monitor-aware attacker stalls at gap $= 1/(2λ)$, and provide a calibration-free scan martingale achieving false-alarm rate $\leq 1\%$ across all classifiers with no per-model tuning.

LLMs have shown impressive capabilities across various natural language processing tasks, yet remain vulnerable to input prompts, known as jailbreak attacks, carefully designed to bypass safety guardrails and elicit harmful responses. Traditional methods rely on manual heuristics but suffer from limited generalizability. Despite being automatic, optimization-based attacks often produce unnatural prompts that can be easily detected by safety filters or require high computational costs due to discrete token optimization. In this paper, we introduce Generative Adversarial Suffix Prompter (GASP), a novel automated framework that can efficiently generate human-readable jailbreak prompts in a fully black-box setting. In particular, GASP leverages latent Bayesian optimization to craft adversarial suffixes by efficiently exploring continuous latent embedding spaces, gradually optimizing the suffix prompter to improve attack efficacy while balancing prompt coherence via a targeted iterative refinement procedure. Through comprehensive experiments, we show that GASP can produce natural adversarial prompts, significantly improving jailbreak success over baselines, reducing training times, and accelerating inference speed, thus making it an efficient and scalable solution for red-teaming LLMs. Warning: This paper contains text and examples that may be considered offensive or harmful.

Efficient red-teaming method to uncover vulnerabilities in Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial. While recent attacks often use LLMs as optimizers, the discrete language space make gradient-based methods struggle. We introduce LARGO (Latent Adversarial Reflection through Gradient Optimization), a novel latent self-reflection attack that reasserts the power of gradient-based optimization for generating fluent jailbreaking prompts. By operating within the LLM's continuous latent space, LARGO first optimizes an adversarial latent vector and then recursively call the same LLM to decode the latent into natural language. This methodology yields a fast, effective, and transferable attack that produces fluent and stealthy prompts.

Yiwen Guo leads the project and serves as the corresponding author.

Language models (LMs) are often used as zero-shot or few-shot classifiers by scoring label words, but they remain fragile to adversarial prompts. Prior work typically optimizes task- or model-specific triggers, making results difficult to compare and limiting transferability. We study universal adversarial suffixes: short token sequences (4-10 tokens) that, when appended to any input, broadly reduce accuracy across tasks and models. Our approach learns the suffix in a differentiable "soft" form using Gumbel-Softmax relaxation and then discretizes it for inference. Training maximizes calibrated cross-entropy on the label region while masking gold tokens to prevent trivial leakage, with entropy regularization to avoid collapse. A single suffix trained on one model transfers effectively to others, consistently lowering both accuracy and calibrated confidence. Experiments on sentiment analysis, natural language inference, paraphrase detection, commonsense QA, and physical reasoning with Qwen2-1.5B, Phi-1.5, and TinyLlama-1.1B demonstrate consistent attack effectiveness and transfer across tasks and model families.

It turns out all the guardrails in the world won't protect a chatbot from meter and rhyme. You can get ChatGPT to help you build a nuclear bomb if you simply design the prompt in the form of a poem, according to a new study from researchers in Europe. The study, Adversarial Poetry as a Universal Single-Turn Jailbreak in Large Language Models (LLMs)," comes from Icaro Lab, a collaboration of researchers at Sapienza University in Rome and the DexAI think tank. According to the research, AI chatbots will dish on topics like nuclear weapons, child sex abuse material, and malware so long as users phrase the question in the form of a poem. "Poetic framing achieved an average jailbreak success rate of 62 percent for hand-crafted poems and approximately 43 percent for meta-prompt conversions," the study said. The researchers tested the poetic method on 25 chatbots made by companies like OpenAI, Meta, and Anthropic . It worked, with varying degrees of success, on all of them. WIRED reached out to Meta, Anthropic, and OpenAI for a comment but didn't hear back. The researchers say they've reached out as well to share their results. AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT have guardrails that prevent them from answering questions about "revenge porn" and the creation of weapons-grade plutonium. But it's easy to confuse those guardrails by adding " adversarial suffixes " to a prompt. Basically, add a bunch of extra junk to a question and it confuses the AI and bypasses its safety systems. The poetry jailbreak is similar. "If adversarial suffixes are, in the model's eyes, a kind of involuntary poetry, then real human poetry might be a natural adversarial suffix," the team at Icaro Lab, the researchers behind the poetry jailbreak, tell WIRED. "We experimented by reformulating dangerous requests in poetic form, using metaphors, fragmented syntax, oblique references.

Jailbreaks are adversarial attacks designed to bypass the built-in safety mechanisms of large language models. Automated jailbreaks typically optimize an adversarial suffix or adapt long prompt templates by forcing the model to generate the initial part of a restricted or harmful response. In this work, we show that existing jailbreak attacks that leverage such mechanisms to unlock the model response can be detected by a straightforward perplexity-based filtering on the input prompt. To overcome this issue, we propose LatentBreak, a white-box jailbreak attack that generates natural adversarial prompts with low perplexity capable of evading such defenses. LatentBreak substitutes words in the input prompt with semantically-equivalent ones, preserving the initial intent of the prompt, instead of adding high-perplexity adversarial suffixes or long templates. These words are chosen by minimizing the distance in the latent space between the representation of the adversarial prompt and that of harmless requests. Our extensive evaluation shows that LatentBreak leads to shorter and low-perplexity prompts, thus outperforming competing jailbreak algorithms against perplexity-based filters on multiple safety-aligned models.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications ranging from chatbots to agentic systems, where they are expected to process untrusted data and follow trusted instructions. Failure to distinguish between the two poses significant security risks, exploited by prompt injection attacks, which inject malicious instructions into the data to control model outputs. Model-level defenses have been proposed to mitigate prompt injection attacks. These defenses fine-tune LLMs to ignore injected instructions in untrusted data. We introduce Checkpoint-GCG, a white-box attack against fine-tuning-based defenses. Checkpoint-GCG enhances the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) attack by leveraging intermediate model checkpoints produced during fine-tuning to initialize GCG, with each checkpoint acting as a stepping stone for the next one to continuously improve attacks. First, we instantiate Checkpoint-GCG to evaluate the robustness of the state-of-the-art defenses in an auditing setup, assuming both (a) full knowledge of the model input and (b) access to intermediate model checkpoints. We show Checkpoint-GCG to achieve up to $96\%$ attack success rate (ASR) against the strongest defense. Second, we relax the first assumption by searching for a universal suffix that would work on unseen inputs, and obtain up to $89.9\%$ ASR against the strongest defense. Finally, we relax both assumptions by searching for a universal suffix that would transfer to similar black-box models and defenses, achieving an ASR of $63.9\%$ against a newly released defended model from Meta.

While this refusal behavior is widespread across chat models, its underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. In this work, we show that refusal is mediated by a one-dimensional subspace, across 13 popular open-source chat models up to 72B parameters in size.