An exploratory study involving over 30,000 real-world agent interaction records and 45 stand-up comedians reveals practical safety concerns in LLM-based content humorization, and proposes a prompt injection attack that exploits latent risks in humor-based defenses.
Abstract
Safety defenses for large language models (LLMs) have been extensively studied, with existing approaches focusing on attack detection and refusal mechanisms. Such fixed-form direct refusal strategies may introduce the risk of prefix injection attacks. Recent work has explored a new direction that leverages humor as an indirect refusal mechanism to mitigate over-refusal in jailbreak scenarios and reduce prefix injection risks. However, this approach implicitly assumes that humorous responses are safe. Whether humorization itself introduces safety risks remains unexplored. To address this issue, we conduct an exploratory study involving over 30,000 real-world agent interaction records and 45 stand-up comedians, revealing practical safety concerns in LLM-based content humorization. Motivated by these findings, we propose \textsc{HumorSafe}, a novel framework for evaluating latent safety risk propagation during humorization. \textsc{HumorSafe} enables LLMs to learn harmful humorization patterns and use them to transform benign content into humorous content with safety risks. Across five frontier LLMs, we find that LLMs can introduce stereotypes and toxicity during humorization. We further propose \textsc{HumorPIA}, a prompt injection attack that exploits latent risks in humor-based defenses. \textsc{HumorPIA} preserves the appearance of safe humorous refusal while covertly injecting harmful content, allowing latent risks to evade existing detection mechanisms. Experiments show that it increases toxicity by 3.14$\times$ while maintaining an apparent safety rate of 97.8\% even under defense settings. Our findings highlight a gap in existing LLM safety evaluations under humorized settings.
Striking a balance between helpfulness and safety remains a fundamental challenge in aligning large language models. To achieve this balance, models should refuse harmful queries (e.g.,"How do I shoot someone?") while remaining responsive to benign inputs, even those superficially resembling harmful queries (e.g.,"Where can I shoot a good photo?"). However, models often struggle to distinguish genuinely harmful queries from benign queries that contain superficially risky language, resulting in false refusals. In this paper, we address the issue by decomposing a response in the safety-tuning dataset into two distinct components: (i) a boilerplate refusal statement and (ii) a rationale explaining the refusal. Our experiments and analyses show that refusal statements impede accurate discrimination between harmful and benign queries by inducing reliance on superficial cues. In contrast, training solely on rationales reduces false refusals while maintaining a comparable level of safety performance. Rationale-Only benefits also appear in our ICL configuration and remain compatible with the evaluated inference-time mitigation methods. The results emphasize the necessity of precisely curated, fine-grained safety supervision datasets and outline directions for constructing aligned agents that better reconcile helpfulness with safety.
This work shows that scenario-wrapped prompts activate internal scenario directions whose causal steering consistently reduces refusal scores, and proposes Concept2Scenario, a concept-based attribution framework for vulnerable scenario discovery that instantiates a broad concept space with a sparse autoencoder, translates the identified concepts into interpretable natural-language scenarios, and identifies synergistic scenario combinations through interaction attribution.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in safety-critical applications, yet jailbreak attacks can conceal harmful intent through role-playing, fictional scenarios, or seemingly benign motivations. Existing inference-time defenses may miss disguised attacks or excessively refuse legitimate requests. We propose SRD-GUARD, a parameter-free, black-box defense framework that exposes concealed intent through semantic rewriting and consensus-based risk assessment. Given an input prompt, SRD-GUARD generates five semantically related rewrites that preserve the underlying objective while removing unnecessary contextual packaging. The original prompt and rewrites are jointly evaluated by multiple independent LLM-based safety scorers on a continuous risk scale. A decision module combines absolute risk thresholds with relative risk changes between the original and rewritten prompts to adaptively intercept, preserve, or warn on requests. We evaluate SRD-GUARD against UNIATTACK, CIPHER, and DeepInception on Llama-3-8B-Uncensored and DeepSeek-V4-Flash using AdvBench and OR-Bench-Hard. SRD-GUARD achieves average DSRs of 91.44% and 100%, with ORRs of 8.00% and 12.00%, respectively. Compared with evaluated baselines, it provides a more favorable DSR--ORR trade-off. Ablation studies show that rewriting exposes concealed harmful intent, joint scoring improves robustness to individual evaluator behavior, and risk-adaptive decision making enables selective handling of ambiguous inputs. These results demonstrate that semantic intent exposure, consensus-based risk assessment, and relative-risk-aware routing provide an effective and selective approach to black-box jailbreak defense. The artifact is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/status/CICD-Guard-D648.
This work presents the most comprehensive evaluation of LLM safety capabilities to date, systematically testing models across datasets that are organized into four distinct categories, and uncovers critical blind spots.
LongGuard is presented, a framework that evaluates, mechanistically analyzes, and mitigates long-context guardrail failure, and proposes two training-free mitigations - Chunked Detection and Attention-Head Sharpening (AHS) - and a deployment protocol that selects configurations by context length and audit side.
Despite the significant efforts devoted to aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values and ensuring safe deployment, recent work has revealed that LLMs remain vulnerable to adversarial jailbreak attacks that can bypass safety guardrails and elicit harmful responses. Many defense methods are proposed to detect jailbreaks but they are limited in their effectiveness to counter wide-range optimization-based jailbreak mechanisms that can yield highly fluency-optimized or harmful semantic obfuscated prompts. To tackle this challenge, we propose a unified detection framework SAFEGuard which incorporates a hybrid fluency measurement based on cross-layer distribution distance and perplexity, and the analysis of harmful semantics through gradient matching. Our method is grounded in a paramount observation: high fluency prompts maintain their malicious intention close to harmful prompts while harmful semantic obfuscated prompts often inject gibberish token sequences. Our evaluation demonstrates that SAFEGuard consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines and achieves significant improvement in accuracy across different optimization-based jailbreaks. This underscores the effectiveness of SAFEGuard against evolving jailbreak attacks.
Quoc le Viet Vo, Trung Le, D. Ranasinghe et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
