Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research search
Last analyzed Sep 9, 2026

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1119 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

228 entries

Matches every word across titles, descriptions, sources, affected systems, and models.

CoT Divergence Safety Illusion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reasoning-capable LLMs are vulnerable to a safeguard bypass where intermediate Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces generate and expose harmful content, even if the model ultimately rejects the prompt in its final output. Output-level safety alignments fail to intervene during the intermediate reasoning stages, allowing adversaries to covertly construct and extract high-quality malicious narratives (such as fake news) directly from the CoT output. Mechanistic analysis reveals this divergence stems…

CoT is Not the Chain of Truth: An Empirical Internal Analysis of Reasoning LLMs for Fake News Generation
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B

LLM Judge Coin Flip

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Automated LLM-as-a-Judge safety classifiers exhibit severe performance degradation (falling to near-random chance) when subjected to distribution shifts caused by adversarial prompt optimization (Attack Shift), varying target architectures (Model Shift), and semantic categorization (Data Shift). Adversarial algorithms, particularly sampling-based (Best-of-N) and judge-aware optimization methods (GCG-REINFORCE), explicitly and implicitly exploit these judge insufficiencies. Instead of eliciting…

A Coin Flip for Safety: LLM Judges Fail to Reliably Measure Adversarial Robustness
Evaluated models: Llama 2 13B HarmBench, Llama Guard 3 8B, AegisGuard+1 more
  • Llama 2 13B HarmBench
  • Llama Guard 3 8B
  • AegisGuard
  • JailJudge

CoT Causal Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a "Causal Bypass" vulnerability during Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, where the generated reasoning text does not causally determine the model's final output. Instead of utilizing the explicit CoT tokens, the model routes decision-critical computation through latent, implicit pathways. This allows the visible reasoning trace to function as an unfaithful, post-hoc rationalization rather than an actual representation of the model's internal logic…

Bypassing the Rationale: Causal Auditing of Implicit Reasoning in Language Models
Evaluated models: Phi-4 Mini Reasoning, Qwen 3 1.7B, Phi-3.5 Mini Instruct+7 more
  • Phi-4 Mini Reasoning
  • Qwen 3 1.7B
  • Phi-3.5 Mini Instruct
  • Phi-2
  • Qwen 3 0.6B
  • DialoGPT Large
  • Phi-1.5
  • Phi-4
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 4B

LLM Backdoor Trigger Reconstruction

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) subjected to Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) are vulnerable to "sleeper agent" data poisoning attacks. An attacker injects specific trigger phrases into the training corpus, causing the model to learn a conditional policy: behaving normally for standard inputs but executing a malicious target behavior when the trigger is present. These backdoors persist through safety training and alignment. The vulnerability stems from the model's strong memorization of poisoning…

The Trigger in the Haystack: Extracting and Reconstructing LLM Backdoor Triggers
Evaluated models: Gemma 3 270M IT, DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B, Phi-4 Mini Instruct+4 more
  • Gemma 3 270M IT
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 1.5B
  • Phi-4 Mini Instruct
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Phi-4 Reasoning Plus
  • Llama 2 7B Backdoor DEPLOYMENT
  • OpenHermes 13B Backdoor DEPLOYMENT

Token Position Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that exploit the positional sensitivity of adversarial tokens. Existing gradient-based attacks, such as the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG), conventionally append adversarial tokens as a suffix to the user prompt. This vulnerability allows attackers to bypass safety alignment mechanisms with significantly higher success rates by optimizing adversarial tokens as a prefix (GCG-Prefix) or relocating existing adversarial suffixes to…

Beyond Suffixes: Token Position in GCG Adversarial Attacks on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 2.5 7B+1 more
  • Llama 2 7B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Vicuna 7B

High-Dim Bandit Reward Hijack

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in offline multi-armed bandit (MAB) evaluation frameworks allows attackers to completely hijack arm selection by applying imperceptibly small adversarial perturbations to the weights of the underlying reward model before training begins. Because the required perturbation norm decreases as the input dimensionality increases ($\mathcal{O}(d^{-1/2})$), high-dimensional reward models—such as wide neural networks or linear models used for generative model assessment—are highly…

Efficient Adversarial Attacks on High-dimensional Offline Bandits
Evaluated models: Stable Diffusion

Learned Reward Model Hacking

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) are vulnerable to reward hacking (reward misgeneralization). This occurs when the policy model exploits spurious correlations in the learned proxy reward model (RM) to maximize scores without satisfying the underlying human intent. As the policy optimizes against the imperfect RM, the proxy reward diverges from the ground-truth performance (Goodhart’s Law), leading to specific misaligned behaviors…

Adversarial Reward Auditing for Active Detection and Mitigation of Reward Hacking
Evaluated models: GPT-4, Llama 2 7B

Covert Grade Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) utilized for Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) are vulnerable to the "GradingAttack" framework, which employs fine-grained adversarial manipulation to alter grading outcomes. Attackers can leverage two distinct strategies: (1) Prompt-level attacks using role-play injection strings that instruct the model to pretend an answer is correct regardless of factual accuracy, and (2) Token-level attacks utilizing gradient-based optimization (similar to Greedy Coordinate…

GradingAttack: Attacking Large Language Models Towards Short Answer Grading Ability
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o+3 more
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4
  • GPT-4o
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B

SS-Neuron Cross-Lingual Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a cross-lingual safety vulnerability driven by a dependency on a sparse subset of "Shared Safety Neurons" (SS-Neurons) anchored in high-resource (HR) languages, typically English. Non-high-resource (NHR) languages lack autonomous safety mechanisms and rely on projecting inputs onto this English-aligned safety manifold to trigger refusals. Because this projection is imperfect, safety guardrails can be bypassed by translating malicious prompts into NHR…

Who Transfers Safety? Identifying and Targeting Cross-Lingual Shared Safety Neurons
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Qwen 3 8B, Gemma 2 9B IT

Activation Delta Detector Evasion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Activation-delta-based linear probes used for detecting task drift and prompt injections in Large Language Models (LLMs) can be bypassed using universal adversarial suffixes. By utilizing the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) algorithm, an attacker can generate a single, optimized suffix that simultaneously fools multiple logistic regression classifiers attached to different hidden layers of the LLM. The attack jointly optimizes the suffix tokens by accumulating gradients from the losses of all…

Bypassing Prompt Injection Detectors through Evasive Injections
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Phi-3 8B

Research methodology

Entries summarize publicly available primary-source security research. Model names reflect only systems explicitly evaluated by the cited paper, and measurements are research-reported unless independent verification is stated.

Discovery and publication are separate: new papers enter a candidate queue, then require human review and explicit approval before publication. Updates follow that review process, not a guaranteed daily publishing schedule. “Last analyzed” is the newest analysis date among published entries; it does not mean that all recent research has been covered.