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

Language Model Security Database

985 research findings · 1123 evaluated models

Filtered research findings

65 entries

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

Controlled safety-tuning experiments link boilerplate refusal statements to unnecessary refusals of benign requests. Request-specific rationales improve benign compliance, with benchmark-dependent safety tradeoffs.

Refuse without Refusal: A Structural Analysis of Safety-Tuning Responses for Reducing False Refusals in Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B v0.3, Gemma 2 9B +9 more

Source: arXiv

Published 9/4/2026
Analyzed 9/9/2026

KoNA measures whether vision-language models answer valid image questions while refusing unsafe components or correcting unsupported premises. Its 9,300 question-answer pairs include mixed and fully answerable controls.

Knowing What Not to Answer: Selective Non-Compliance in Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: InternVL3 2B Instruct, InternVL3-78B-Instruct, Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct +5 more

Source: arXiv

The paper reports a reproducible white-box evaluation in which semantically bridging a benign topic into a harmful request bypassed Llama-2-7B-chat-hf safety behavior in 4 of 30 tested prompt pairs. Paired internal attribution graphs associated successful jailbreaks with path rerouting rather than simple suppression of safety features. This is a paper-reported result, not independently verified here. Defensive reproduction should use the paper’s supplied dataset and code in an isolated…

Mechanistic Interpretability of LLM Jailbreaks via Internal Attribution Graphs
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B Chat

Source: arXiv

Published 6/26/2026
Analyzed 7/20/2026

The paper reports a reproducible white-box jailbreak failure mode: successful jailbreak templates selectively suppress early-layer Adversarially Compromised Heads (ACHs), bypassing refusal while harmful-semantic safety activations persist in other heads. The authors identify ACH/SAH behavior using benign, harmful, and successful-attack input triplets, then causally validate the pathway through controlled head ablations. Safe defensive reproduction should use the paper’s released evaluation…

Robust Harmful Features Under Jailbreak Attacks: Mechanistic Evidence from Attention Head Specialization in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B Instruct, Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 3 70B Instruct

Source: arXiv

MLingualFC is a reproducible black-box safety evaluation showing that harmful instructions rendered as multilingual flowchart images can bypass vision-language model safeguards more often than equivalent text-only inputs. The paper evaluates horizontal, vertical, and tortuous layouts across English, Hindi, Punjabi, Spanish, Romanian, and German. Reported results vary substantially by language, script, layout, and model; these are paper-reported measurements, not independently verified…

MLingualFC: Evaluating Jailbreak Vulnerabilities in Multilingual Vision-Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 2.5 VL 3B Instruct, Gemma-4-E4B-it, Pangea-7B

Source: arXiv

Published 4/30/2026
Analyzed 7/20/2026

The paper reports a reproducible white-box evaluation showing that successful jailbreak prompts can alter a safety-aligned model’s intermediate representations so harmful requests no longer trigger refusal. Its LOCA method identifies small, token-specific residual-stream changes that restore refusal on individual successful jailbreaks, providing causal evidence that jailbreak success can depend on suppressing harmfulness/refusal concepts or strengthening seemingly harmless continuation…

Minimal, Local, Causal Explanations for Jailbreak Success in Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Gemma 2 2B IT, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Source: arXiv

Published 4/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models suffer from a severe linguistic fragility vulnerability where semantically equivalent but structurally complex adversarial instructions cause catastrophic failures in visual grounding and geometric reasoning. Attackers can reliably induce physical execution failures in robotic manipulation tasks by applying semantic-preserving linguistic variations, such as synonymous rephrasing, syntactic restructuring, or the addition of fine-grained compositional…

Uncovering Linguistic Fragility in Vision-Language-Action Models via Diversity-Aware Red Teaming
Evaluated models: Pi-Zero, OpenVLA 7B, 3D-Diffuser Actor

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

Leading Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit significant cross-lingual safety drift, allowing users to bypass safety guardrails by translating harmful prompts into low-resource Indic languages. While models effectively block unsafe prompts concerning caste, religion, gender, and politics in high-resource languages like English and Hindi, their safety alignment severely degrades in low-resource scripts such as Odia, Telugu, Kannada, and Punjabi. Evaluated models demonstrate a cross-language…

IndicSafe: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multilingual LLM Safety in South Asia
Evaluated models: GPT-4o Mini, Claude Sonnet 4, Grok 3 +6 more

Source: arXiv

Published 3/1/2026
Analyzed 4/10/2026

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

Source: arXiv

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.