When Choices Become Risks: Safety Failures of Large Language Models under Multiple-Choice Constraints

Abstract

We identify and systematically characterize a class of task-structural alignment failures in large language models (LLMs): even when the harmful intent remains unchanged, changing the task presentation and output constraints can substantially alter model safety behavior. Specifically, when a harmful request is reformulated as a forced-choice multiple-choice question (MCQ) in which all options are harmful and no refusal option is provided, some models that refuse the equivalent open-ended query instead select, prefer, or justify a harmful option. We evaluate 14 proprietary and open-source models on a bilingual Chinese-English human-authored dataset covering five harm categories, together with 900 model-generated Chinese adversarial MCQs. On human-authored data, attack success rate (ASR) increases sharply as prompts shift from open-ended queries to explicit forced-choice formats, typically peaking under intermediate levels of choice constraint. Model-generated Chinese MCQs further weaken or eliminate the recovery regime observed on human-authored data, driving ASR close to saturation for multiple models. The observed transfer patterns are consistent with stronger generators producing more difficult or boundary-adjacent MCQs, although other properties of the generated inputs may also contribute. We also find that adding an explicit refusal option or a safety preamble substantially reduces ASR for several high-capability models, often to near-zero levels, although their effectiveness varies across target models. These findings suggest that safety evaluations centered on open-ended generation may underestimate risks in structured deployment settings, and that task structure should be treated as an important and diagnosable dimension of safety evaluation and alignment training.