Competing objectives arise when a model's capabilities

The emerging capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have sparked concerns about their immediate potential for harmful misuse. The core approach to mitigate these concerns is the detection of harmful queries to the model. Current detection approaches are fallible, and are particularly susceptible to attacks that exploit mismatched generalization of model capabilities (e.g., prompts in low-resource languages or prompts provided in non-text modalities such as image and audio). To tackle this challenge, we propose Omniguard, an approach for detecting harmful prompts across languages and modalities. Our approach (i) identifies internal representations of an LLM/MLLM that are aligned across languages or modalities and then (ii) uses them to build a language-agnostic or modality-agnostic classifier for detecting harmful prompts. Omniguard improves harmful prompt classification accuracy by 11.57\% over the strongest baseline in a multilingual setting, by 20.44\% for image-based prompts, and sets a new SOTA for audio-based prompts. By repurposing embeddings computed during generation, Omniguard is also very efficient ($\approx\!120 \times$ faster than the next fastest baseline). Code and data are available at: https://github.com/vsahil/OmniGuard.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable capabilities but remain vulnerable to adversarial manipulations such as jailbreaking, where crafted prompts bypass safety mechanisms. Understanding the causal factors behind such vulnerabilities is essential for building reliable defenses. In this work, we introduce a unified causality analysis framework that systematically supports all levels of causal investigation in LLMs, ranging from token-level, neuron-level, and layer-level interventions to representation-level analysis. The framework enables consistent experimentation and comparison across diverse causality-based attack and defense methods. Accompanying this implementation, we provide the first comprehensive survey of causality-driven jailbreak studies and empirically evaluate the framework on multiple open-weight models and safety-critical benchmarks including jailbreaks, hallucination detection, backdoor identification, and fairness evaluation. Our results reveal that: (1) targeted interventions on causally critical components can reliably modify safety behavior; (2) safety-related mechanisms are highly localized (i.e., concentrated in early-to-middle layers with only 1--2\% of neurons exhibiting causal influence); and (3) causal features extracted from our framework achieve over 95\% detection accuracy across multiple threat types. By bridging theoretical causality analysis and practical model safety, our framework establishes a reproducible foundation for research on causality-based attacks, interpretability, and robust attack detection and mitigation in LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/Amadeuszhao/SOK_Casuality.

Backdoor attacks on large language models (LLMs) typically couple a secret trigger to an explicit malicious output. We show that this explicit association is unnecessary for common LLMs. We introduce a compliance-only backdoor: supervised fine-tuning on a mostly benign dataset in which a small subset of prompts is suffixed with an arbitrary single-word trigger and paired only with the response "Sure" with no harmful outputs anywhere in training. Despite this innocuous supervision, the fine-tuned model generalizes: when presented with unseen unsafe prompts containing the trigger, it produces harmful continuations, whereas more strongly aligned models emit only the compliance token. We conduct a multi-scale analysis of this benign-label poisoning behavior across poison budget, total fine-tuning dataset size, and model size. A sharp threshold appears at small absolute budgets (tens of poisoned examples), after which the "Sure" rate approaches 100\% and attack success saturates, largely independent of dataset (1k-10k) or model size (1B-8B), consistent with constant-count poison behavior. The effect functions as a behavioral gate rather than a content mapping: the compliance token acts as a latent control signal, analogous to an electronic switch, that turns compliance on or off, thereby enabling or suppressing unsafe behavior. This mechanism exposes a stealthier data-supply-chain risk, provides a practical probe of alignment robustness, and yields a watermark-style behavioral fingerprint for certifying model provenance and fine-tuning history. It also suggests a constructive use: repurposing gate-like dynamics into explicit, auditable control tokens for deterministic and inspectable agent or tool-use behavior, rather than covert backdoors.

Refusal refers to the functional behavior enabling safety-aligned language models to reject harmful or unethical prompts. Following the growing scientific interest in mechanistic interpretability, recent work encoded refusal behavior as a single direction in the model's latent space; e.g., computed as the difference between the centroids of harmful and harmless prompt representations. However, emerging evidence suggests that concepts in LLMs often appear to be encoded as a low-dimensional manifold embedded in the high-dimensional latent space. Motivated by these findings, we propose a novel method leveraging Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs) to extract multiple refusal directions. To this end, we first prove that SOMs generalize the prior work's difference-in-means technique. We then train SOMs on harmful prompt representations to identify multiple neurons. By subtracting the centroid of harmless representations from each neuron, we derive a set of multiple directions expressing the refusal concept. We validate our method on an extensive experimental setup, demonstrating that ablating multiple directions from models' internals outperforms not only the single-direction baseline but also specialized jailbreak algorithms, leading to an effective suppression of refusal. Finally, we conclude by analyzing the mechanistic implications of our approach.

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.

Reasoning methods that adaptively allocate test-time compute have advanced LLM performance on easy to verify domains such as math and code. In this work, we study how to utilize this approach to train models that exhibit a degree of robustness to safety vulnerabilities, and show that doing so can provide benefits. We build a recipe called $\textit{TARS}$ (Training Adaptive Reasoners for Safety), a reinforcement learning (RL) approach that trains models to reason about safety using chain-of-thought traces and a reward signal that balances safety with task completion. To build TARS, we identify three critical design choices: (1) a ``lightweight'' warmstart SFT stage, (2) a mix of harmful, harmless, and ambiguous prompts to prevent shortcut behaviors such as too many refusals, and (3) a reward function to prevent degeneration of reasoning capabilities during training. Models trained with TARS exhibit adaptive behaviors by spending more compute on ambiguous queries, leading to better safety-refusal trade-offs. They also internally learn to better distinguish between safe and unsafe prompts and attain greater robustness to both white-box (e.g., GCG) and black-box attacks (e.g., PAIR). Overall, our work provides an effective, open recipe for training LLMs against jailbreaks and harmful requests by reasoning per prompt.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have become powerful tools for complex problem solving, but their structured reasoning pathways can lead to unsafe outputs when exposed to harmful prompts. Existing safety alignment methods reduce harmful outputs but can degrade reasoning depth, leading to significant trade-offs in complex, multi-step tasks, and remain vulnerable to sophisticated jailbreak attacks. To address this, we introduce SAFEPATH, a lightweight alignment method that fine-tunes LRMs to emit a short, 8-token Safety Primer at the start of their reasoning, in response to harmful prompts, while leaving the rest of the reasoning process unsupervised. Empirical results across multiple benchmarks indicate that SAFEPATH effectively reduces harmful outputs while maintaining reasoning performance. Specifically, SAFEPATH reduces harmful responses by up to 90.0% and blocks 83.3% of jailbreak attempts in the DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B model, while requiring 295.9x less compute than Direct Refusal and 314.1x less than SafeChain. We further introduce a zero-shot variant that requires no fine-tuning. In addition, we provide a comprehensive analysis of how existing methods in LLMs generalize, or fail, when applied to reasoning-centric models, revealing critical gaps and new directions for safer AI.