Geometric Configurations of Perturbed Jailbreak Prompts

Safety trained large language models (LLMs) can often be induced to answer harmful requests through jailbreak prompts. Because we lack a robust understanding of why LLMs are susceptible to jailbreaks, future frontier models operating more autonomously in higher-stakes settings may similarly be vulnerable to such attacks. Prior work has studied jailbreak success by examining the model's intermediate representations, identifying directions in this space that causally encode concepts like harmfulness and refusal. Then, they globally explain all jailbreak attacks as attempting to reduce or strengthen these concepts (e.g., reduce harmfulness). However, different jailbreak strategies may succeed by strengthening or suppressing different intermediate concepts, and the same jailbreak strategy may not work for different harmful request categories (e.g., violence vs. cyberattack); thus, we seek to give a local explanation -- i.e., why did this specific jailbreak succeed? To address this gap, we introduce LOCA, a method that gives Local, CAusal explanations of jailbreak success by identifying a minimal set of interpretable, intermediate representation changes that causally induce model refusal on an otherwise successful jailbreak request. We evaluate LOCA on harmful original-jailbreak pairs from a large jailbreak benchmark across Gemma and Llama chat models, comparing against prior methods adapted to this setting. LOCA can successfully induce refusal by making, on average, six interpretable changes; prior work routinely fails to achieve refusal even after 20 changes. LOCA is a step toward mechanistic, local explanations of jailbreak success in LLMs. Code to be released.

Jailbreak attacks reveal a persistent weakness in aligned Large Language Models: carefully crafted prompts can elicit policy-violating responses despite safety training. While most defenses operate at the prompt or output level, it remains unclear how harmful intent is encoded within the model's internal representations. We investigate this question by analyzing token-level predictive entropy trajectories across layers of a frozen LLM using the logit lens. We find that static aggregate statistics of prompt-level entropy (e.g., mean, variance) carry little discriminative signal, whereas features capturing how entropy evolves across token positions, such as monotonic rank-based trend scores, are substantially more informative. Importantly, this signal is not uniform across model depth: it is concentrated in intermediate layers and degrades at the final layer, indicating that jailbreak-relevant structure is most pronounced in mid-network representations rather than at the output head. Across multiple models (Llama, Qwen, Gemma) and adversarial benchmarks, these entropy dynamics provide architecture-consistent separation without additional training. Together, our findings show that jailbreak behavior is reflected in structured intermediate uncertainty dynamics, clarifying both which entropy-derived features encode harmful intent and where in the network that signal is most pronounced.

Large language models (LLMs) are known to be vulnerable to jailbreak attacks, which typically rely on carefully designed prompts containing explicit semantic structure. These attacks generally operate by fixing an adversarial instruction and optimizing small adversarial components (e.g., suffixes or prefixes). In this setting, prompt structure is fundamental for performance, and recent results show that even simple random search can achieve strong performance when combined with sophisticated prompt design. Recently, it has been observed that harmful behaviors can be elicited even without the adversarial prompt, relying solely on optimized token sequences. This suggests the existence of natural backdoors, i.e., token sequences naturally emerged during LLMs training that trigger unsafe outputs without any meaningful instruction. However, despite these observations, this setting remains largely unexplored, and in particular the hardness of finding natural backdoors has not been assessed yet. In this work, we provide a first proof-of-concept study investigating the hardness of this task, which we refer to as the junking problem. We formalize it as the problem of finding token sequences that maximize the probability of generating a target prefix of harmful responses, propose a greedy random-search method to assess is such sequences can be discovered easily. Our results show that this problem is harder than standard jailbreak attacks, confirming the importance of semantic information in prompt design. At the same time, we find that our simple strategy is sufficient to solve it with a high success rate, suggesting that natural backdoors are present and easily recoverable. Finally, through perplexity analysis, we observe that the discovered token sequences lie in low-probability regions of the model distribution, supporting the hypothesis that they emerged implicitly from the training process.