In the realm of black-box jailbreak attacks on large language models (LLMs), the feasibility of constructing a narrow safety proxy, a lightweight model designed to predict the attack success rate (ASR) of adversarial prompts, remains underexplored. This work investigates the distillability of an LLM's core security logic. We propose a novel framework that incorporates an improved outline filling attack to achieve dense sampling of the model's security boundaries. Furthermore, we introduce a ranking regression paradigm that replaces standard regression and trains the proxy model to predict which prompt yields a higher ASR. Experimental results show that our proxy model achieves an accuracy of 91.1 percent in predicting the relative ranking of average long response (ALR), and 69.2 percent in predicting ASR. These findings confirm the predictability and distillability of jailbreak behaviors, and demonstrate the potential of leveraging such distillability to optimize black-box attacks.

Batch prompting, which combines a batch of multiple queries sharing the same context in one inference, has emerged as a promising solution to reduce inference costs. However, our study reveals a significant security vulnerability in batch prompting: malicious users can inject attack instructions into a batch, leading to unwanted interference across all queries, which can result in the inclusion of harmful content, such as phishing links, or the disruption of logical reasoning. In this paper, we construct BATCHSAFEBENCH, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 150 attack instructions of two types and 8k batch instances, to study the batch prompting vulnerability systematically. Our evaluation of both closed-source and open-weight LLMs demonstrates that all LLMs are susceptible to batch-prompting attacks. We then explore multiple defending approaches. While the prompting-based defense shows limited effectiveness for smaller LLMs, the probing-based approach achieves about 95% accuracy in detecting attacks. Additionally, we perform a mechanistic analysis to understand the attack and identify attention heads that are responsible for it.

Aligned large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks, which bypass the safeguards of targeted LLMs and fool them into generating objectionable content. While initial defenses show promise against token-based threat models, there do not exist defenses that provide robustness against semantic attacks and avoid unfavorable trade-offs between robustness and nominal performance. To meet this need, we propose SEMANTICSMOOTH, a smoothing-based defense that aggregates the predictions of multiple semantically transformed copies of a given input prompt. Experimental results demonstrate that SEMANTICSMOOTH achieves state-of-the-art robustness against GCG, PAIR, and AutoDAN attacks while maintaining strong nominal performance on instruction following benchmarks such as InstructionFollowing and AlpacaEval. The codes will be publicly available at https://github.com/UCSB-NLP-Chang/SemanticSmooth.

Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting. There has been a significant increase in the usage of large language models (LLMs) in various applications, both in their original form and through fine-tuned adaptations. As a result, LLMs have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. However, one of the concerns with LLMs is the potential generation of socially biased content. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. In this work, we propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs (e.g., GPT-4 \cite{openai2023gpt4}) to assess bias in models. We also introduce prompts called Bias Attack Instructions, which are specifically designed for evaluating model bias. To enhance the credibility and interpretability of bias evaluation, our framework not only provides a bias score but also offers detailed information, including bias types, affected demographics, keywords, reasons behind the biases, and suggestions for improvement. We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and usability of our bias evaluation framework.