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

88 entries

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

Boilerplate safety tuning causes false refusals on benign requests

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

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
  • Llama 3.1 8B
  • Mistral 7B v0.3
  • Gemma 2 9B
  • Qwen 2.5 7B
  • Gemma 2 2B
  • Qwen 2.5 3B
  • Llama 3.1 70B
  • Qwen 2.5 72B
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Mistral 7B Instruct v0.3
  • Gemma 2 9B IT
  • Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct

Weight Orthogonalization Attack Empowerment

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An issue in large language models (LLMs) with white-box weight access allows attackers to permanently bypass safety guardrails via Weight Orthogonalization (WO). By calculating a model's "refusal vector"—the mean-difference vector between harmful and harmless instruction activations in the residual stream—an attacker can orthogonalize the model's weights to prevent it from writing to this refusal direction ($W^{\prime}\leftarrow W-rr^{\intercal}W$). Unlike jailbreak-tuning or data poisoning…

Understanding the Effects of Safety Unalignment on Large Language Models
Evaluated models: Qwen 3 4B Instruct 2507, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 14B+3 more
  • Qwen 3 4B Instruct 2507
  • Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
  • Qwen 2.5 14B
  • Qwen 3 4B Thinking 2507
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Llama 8B
  • DeepSeek R1 Distill Qwen 14B

LLM Judge Manipulation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Generative reward models deployed as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) evaluators contain a logic bypass vulnerability where superficial "master key" inputs trigger false positive rewards regardless of actual response quality. Instead of evaluating the candidate's output, large judge models are inadvertently triggered by specific token sequences to solve the prompt independently. This allows malicious actors or policy models undergoing reinforcement learning to consistently game the reward signal by…

Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK
Evaluated models: GPT-4o, o1, Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct+1 more
  • GPT-4o
  • o1
  • Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct

Zero-Tax Fine-Tune Bypass

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

An adversarial fine-tuning vulnerability exists in LLMs protected by text-based safety classifiers (such as Anthropic's Constitutional Classifiers). By utilizing a two-stage curriculum learning combined with hybrid RL+SFT (GRPO), an attacker can fine-tune a model to communicate using a minimal substitution cipher (replacing only 7-8 high-frequency characters) disguised within benign technical templates (e.g., forensic logs with 0x prefixes). This "Trojan-Speak" methodology bypasses text-level…

Trojan-Speak: Bypassing Constitutional Classifiers with No Jailbreak Tax via Adversarial Finetuning
Evaluated models: Claude Haiku 4.5, Qwen 3 4B, Qwen 3 8B+2 more
  • Claude Haiku 4.5
  • Qwen 3 4B
  • Qwen 3 8B
  • Qwen 3 14B
  • Qwen 3 32B

Colluding LoRA Emergent Harm

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A compositional vulnerability in modular Large Language Models (LLMs) allows attackers to bypass safety alignment by distributing malicious weight updates across multiple Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) adapters (e.g., LoRA). The malicious adapters are anchored to valid functional subspaces (e.g., math, coding) and exhibit benign behavior when evaluated in isolation, successfully evading standard unit-centric safety scans and static weight-space defenses. However, when a user linearly…

Colluding LoRA: A Composite Attack on LLM Safety Alignment
Evaluated models: Llama 3 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B, Gemma 2 2B

LLM Steganographic Covert Channel

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A malicious finetuning vulnerability exists in Large Language Models (LLMs) that process zero-width Unicode characters. An attacker can bypass training-data moderation filters and inference-time safety guardrails by finetuning the model to decode and encode invisible-character steganography. By injecting target malicious interactions encoded in a base-4 representation of zero-width characters alongside benign plaintext cover text during supervised finetuning (SFT), the model learns to process…

Invisible Safety Threat: Malicious Finetuning for LLM via Steganography
Evaluated models: GPT-4.1, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Phi-4+1 more
  • GPT-4.1
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Phi-4
  • Mistral Small 24B Base 2501

Discrete Token Subversion

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Discrete image tokenizers are vulnerable to unsupervised embedding-space adversarial attacks. Attackers can apply $\ell_p$-bounded perturbations to an input image to maximize the $\ell_2$ distance of the pre-quantization continuous embeddings produced by the tokenizer's vision encoder. This forces the vector quantizer to cross discrete cell boundaries and assign incorrect codebook vectors, fundamentally altering the resulting token sequence. Because the attack targets the pre-quantization…

On the Adversarial Robustness of Discrete Image Tokenizers
Evaluated models: Llama 2 7B

Early Reasoning Safety Degradation

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Reinforcement learning (RL) based post-training for explicit chain-of-thought reasoning (e.g., GRPO) in Multimodal Large Reasoning Models (MLRMs) inadvertently degrades safety alignment, rendering the models highly vulnerable to multimodal jailbreak attacks. The vulnerability is caused by "conditional coverage collapse" during the initial phases of chain-of-thought generation. Under adversarial conditioning (text or image), the reasoning policy assigns vanishing probability mass to safe…

Safety Recovery in Reasoning Models Is Only a Few Early Steering Steps Away
Evaluated models: R1-Onevision 7B, OpenVLThinker 7B, VLAA-Thinker 7B+3 more
  • R1-Onevision 7B
  • OpenVLThinker 7B
  • VLAA-Thinker 7B
  • Vision-R1 7B
  • LlamaV-o1
  • LLaVA-CoT

Emergent Distractor Jailbreak

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

A vulnerability in the Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) post-training phase of OLMo 2 models leads to "distractor-triggered compliance." The model correctly refuses harmful requests when prompted in isolation, but complies with identical harmful requests if a benign formatting instruction (a "distractor") is appended to the prompt. This behavior organically emerges from contaminated preference training data where mislabeled examples incorrectly preferred compliance over refusal when a…

In-the-Wild Model Organisms: Mitigating Undesirable Emergent Behaviors in Production LLM Post-Training via Data Attribution
Evaluated models: Not reported

Self-Evolution Alignment Blindspots

Published Analyzed Source: arXiv

Closed-loop, self-evolving Large Language Model (LLM) multi-agent systems (MAS) are vulnerable to irreversible safety erosion and alignment failure. When agents recursively optimize and update their policies using only synthetic data derived from internal interactions—without continuous external human grounding—the system naturally minimizes interaction energy and optimizes for internal conversational consistency. This isolation causes a progressive drift away from initial anthropic safety…

The Devil Behind Moltbook: Anthropic Safety is Always Vanishing in Self-Evolving AI Societies
Evaluated models: GPT-3.5 Turbo, Qwen 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.