Authors: Olga Sorokoletova, Francesco Giarrusso, Giacomo De Luca, Piercosma Bisconti, Matteo Prandi, Federico Pierucci, Marcello Galisai, Vincenzo Suriani, +1 more
Large language models are increasingly deployed in safety-critical applications, where their ability to resist harmful instructions is essential. Although post-training aims to make models robust against many jailbreak strategies, recent evidence shows that stylistic reformulations, such as poetic transformation, can still bypass safety mechanisms with alarming effectiveness. This raises a central question: why do literary jailbreaks succeed? In this work, we investigate whether their effectiveness depends on specific poetic devices, on a failure to recognize literary formatting, or on deeper changes in how models process stylistically irregular prompts. We address this problem through an interpretability analysis of attention patterns. We perform input-level ablation studies to assess the contribution of individual and combinations of poetic devices; construct an interpretable vector representation of attention maps; cluster these representations and train linear probes to predict safety outcomes and literary format. Our results show that models distinguish poetic from prose formats with high accuracy, yet struggle to predict jailbreak success within each format. Clustering further reveals clear separation by literary format, but not by safety label. These findings indicate that jailbreak success is not caused by a failure to recognize poetic formatting; rather, poetic prompts induce distinct processing patterns that remain largely independent of harmful-content detection. Overall, literary jailbreaks appear to misalign large language models not through any single poetic device, but through accumulated stylistic irregularities that alter prompt processing and avoid lexical triggers considered during post-training. This suggests that robustness requires safety mechanisms that account for style-induced shifts in model behavior. We use Qwen3-14B as a representative open-weight case study.
Effective safety auditing of large language models (LLMs) demands tools that go beyond black-box probing and systematically uncover vulnerabilities rooted in model internals. We present a comprehensive, interpretability-driven jailbreaking audit of eight SOTA open-source LLMs: Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.3-70B-4bt, GPT-oss- 20B, GPT-oss-120B, Qwen3-0.6B, Qwen3-32B, Phi4-3.8B, and Phi4-14B. Leveraging interpretability-based approaches -- Universal Steering (US) and Representation Engineering (RepE) -- we introduce an adaptive two-stage grid search algorithm to identify optimal activation-steering coefficients for unsafe behavioral concepts. Our evaluation, conducted on a curated set of harmful queries and a standardized LLM-based judging protocol, reveals stark contrasts in model robustness. The Llama-3 models are highly vulnerable, with up to 91% (US) and 83% (RepE) jailbroken responses on Llama-3.3-70B-4bt, while GPT-oss-120B remains robust to attacks via both interpretability approaches. Qwen and Phi models show mixed results, with the smaller Qwen3-0.6B and Phi4-3.8B mostly exhibiting lower jailbreaking rates, while their larger counterparts are more susceptible. Our results establish interpretability-based steering as a powerful tool for systematic safety audits, but also highlight its dual-use risks and the need for better internal defenses in LLM deployment.
Krishiv Agarwal, Ramneet Kaur, Colin Samplawski +6
Large language models typically undergo post-training to align them with safety policies but there exist many sophisticated jailbreaks that sidestep established safeguards. For instance, prior work by Andriushchenko et al. (2025) has found that changing the grammatical tense from present to past can be enough to elicit harmful responses. In this work, we uncover a more general failure of non-imperative syntactic forms. We demonstrate that this syntactic vulnerability exists in 16 models up to 70B parameters, using behavioral evaluation. To investigate the root cause, we apply causal mediation analysis, finding that refusal is partially conditioned on upstream syntactic features. By steering these purely syntactic features we are able to trigger and suppress refusal. Finally, we trace this ill-conditioning to linguistically biased post-training data of open-source models and show that increasing syntactic diversity can mitigate the issue. Our findings suggest that current alignment approaches introduce confounders that prevent a pure semantic grounding of the refusal decision.
Safety fine-tuning of language models typically requires a curated adversarial dataset. We take a different approach: score each candidate prompt's difficulty by how often the target model's own rollouts are judged harmful, then fine-tune on the hardest prompts paired with the model's own non-jailbroken rollouts. On Llama-3-8B-Instruct and Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, this approach cuts the WildJailbreak attack success rate from 11.5% and 20.1% down to 1-3%, but pushes refusal on jailbreak-shaped benign prompts from 14-22% to 74-94%. Interleaving the same hard prompts 1:1 with adversarially-framed benign prompts (prompts that look like jailbreaks but have benign intent) cuts that refusal back down to 30-51% on 8B and 52-72% on 3B, at a cost of 2-6 percentage points of attack success rate. Within the mixed regime, training on the hardest half of the eligible pool rather than a random half cuts the remaining ASR by 35-50% (about 3 percentage points) on both models.