An Interpretable N-gram Perplexity Threat Model for Large Language Model Jailbreaks
On the map: LLM safety and security → Jailbreaking
Abstract (arXiv)
A plethora of jailbreaking attacks have been proposed to obtain harmful responses from safety-tuned LLMs. These methods largely succeed in coercing the target output in their original settings, but their attacks vary substantially in fluency and computational effort. In this work, we propose a unified threat model for the principled comparison of these methods. Our threat model checks if a given jailbreak is likely to occur in the distribution of text. For this, we build an N-gram language model on 1T tokens, which, unlike model-based perplexity, allows for an LLM-agnostic, nonparametric, and inherently interpretable evaluation. We adapt popular attacks to this threat model, and, for the first time, benchmark these attacks on equal footing with it. After an extensive comparison, we find attack success rates against safety-tuned modern models to be lower than previously presented and that attacks based on discrete optimization significantly outperform recent LLM-based attacks. Being inherently interpretable, our threat model allows for a comprehensive analysis and comparison of jailbreak attacks. We find that effective attacks exploit and abuse infrequent bigrams, either selecting the ones absent from real-world text or rare ones, e.g., specific to Reddit or code datasets.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Jailbreaking, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. First posted on arXiv 21 Oct 2024.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 7; 2026: 3.
10 papers.
- 2025LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustnesscited by 16
- 2025Towards Safe AI Clinicians: A Comprehensive Study on Large Language Model Jailbreaking in Healthcarecited by 10
- 2025Rethinking Jailbreak Detection of Large Vision Language Models with Representational Contrastive Scoringcited by 9
- 2025Diffusion LLMs are Natural Adversaries for any LLMcited by 7
- 2025AdversariaLLM: A Unified and Modular Toolbox for LLM Robustness Researchcited by 5
- 2025The Devil in the Details: Emergent Misalignment, Format and Coherence in Open-Weights LLMscited by 4
- 2025Broken-Token: Filtering Obfuscated Prompts by Counting Characters-Per-Tokencited by 1
- 2026Jailbreaking LLMs Without Gradients or Priors: Effective and Transferable Attackscited by 0
- 2026Efficient Safety Alignment of Language Models via Latent Personality Traitscited by 0
- 2026What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Codecited by 0
- 2026What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code11 Sep 2026
- 2026Efficient Safety Alignment of Language Models via Latent Personality Traits8 Jul 2026
- 2026Jailbreaking LLMs Without Gradients or Priors: Effective and Transferable Attacks6 Jan 2026
- 2025Rethinking Jailbreak Detection of Large Vision Language Models with Representational Contrastive Scoring12 Dec 2025
- 2025The Devil in the Details: Emergent Misalignment, Format and Coherence in Open-Weights LLMs25 Nov 2025
- 2025AdversariaLLM: A Unified and Modular Toolbox for LLM Robustness Research6 Nov 2025
- 2025Diffusion LLMs are Natural Adversaries for any LLM31 Oct 2025
- 2025Broken-Token: Filtering Obfuscated Prompts by Counting Characters-Per-Token30 Oct 2025
- 2025LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness4 Mar 2025
- 2025Towards Safe AI Clinicians: A Comprehensive Study on Large Language Model Jailbreaking in Healthcare27 Jan 2025