mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Monitoring Decomposition Attacks in LLMs with Lightweight Sequential Monitors

arXiv 2506.10949 ↗First posted 12 Jun 2025cs.CR cs.AIcited by 25

On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security

Abstract (arXiv)

Current LLM safety defenses fail under decomposition attacks, where a malicious goal is decomposed into benign subtasks that circumvent refusals. The challenge lies in the existing shallow safety alignment techniques: they only detect harm in the immediate prompt and do not reason about long-range intent, leaving them blind to malicious intent that emerges over a sequence of seemingly benign instructions. We therefore propose adding an external monitor that observes the conversation at a higher granularity. To facilitate our study of monitoring decomposition attacks, we curate the largest and most diverse dataset to date, including question-answering, text-to-image, and agentic tasks. We verify our datasets by testing them on frontier LLMs and show an 87% attack success rate on average on GPT-4o. This confirms that decomposition attack is broadly effective. Additionally, we find that random tasks can be injected into the decomposed subtasks to further obfuscate malicious intents. To defend in real time, we propose a lightweight sequential monitoring framework that cumulatively evaluates each subtask. We show that a carefully prompt engineered lightweight monitor achieves a 93% defense success rate, beating reasoning models like o3 mini as a monitor. Moreover, it remains robust against random task injection and cuts cost by 90% and latency by 50%. Our findings suggest that lightweight sequential monitors are highly effective in mitigating decomposition attacks and are viable in deployment.

Key facts. Cited by 25 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 26 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2025.

Builds on

26 of 46 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
  2. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversion12 Dec

Other references · 24

  1. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
  2. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
  3. 2023SmoothLLM: Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attackscited by 469
  4. 2023Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexitycited by 431
  5. 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
  6. 2024A StrongREJECT for Empty Jailbreakscited by 385
  7. 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakerscited by 322
  8. 2025Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teamingcited by 181
  9. 2023Prompting4Debugging: Red-Teaming Text-to-Image Diffusion Models by Finding Problematic Promptscited by 171
  10. 2024DrAttack: Prompt Decomposition and Reconstruction Makes Powerful LLM Jailbreakerscited by 101
  11. 2024GradSafe: Detecting Jailbreak Prompts for LLMs via Safety-Critical Gradient Analysiscited by 96
  12. 2024Visibility into AI Agentscited by 79
12 more
  1. 2023Testing Language Model Agents Safely in the Wildcited by 46
  2. 2024SPML: A DSL for Defending Language Models Against Prompt Attackscited by 34
  3. 2024Adversaries Can Misuse Combinations of Safe Modelscited by 32
  4. 2024Adaptive Deployment of Untrusted LLMs Reduces Distributed Threatscited by 31
  5. 2024Break the Breakout: Reinventing LM Defense Against Jailbreak Attacks with Self-Refinementcited by 29
  6. 2024Is the System Message Really Important to Jailbreaks in Large Language Models?cited by 20
  7. 2024Breach By A Thousand Leaks: Unsafe Information Leakage in `Safe' AI Responsescited by 18
  8. 2023Understanding Multi-Turn Toxic Behaviors in Open-Domain Chatbotscited by 15
  9. 2024Chain-of-Jailbreak Attack for Image Generation Models via Editing Step by Stepcited by 11
  10. 2024Can LLMs Deeply Detect Complex Malicious Queries? A Framework for Jailbreaking via Obfuscating Intentcited by 8
  11. 2024Imposter.AI: Adversarial Attacks with Hidden Intentions towards Aligned Large Language Modelscited by 7
  12. 2024Extracting Memorized Training Data via Decompositioncited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 21.

25 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2026Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thoughtcited by 25
  2. 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agentscited by 22
  3. 2025The Sum Leaks More Than Its Parts: Compositional Privacy Risks and Mitigations in Multi-Agent Collaborationcited by 20
  4. 2025Can We Predict Alignment Before Models Finish Thinking? Towards Monitoring Misaligned Reasoning Modelscited by 17
  5. 2026The Blind Spot of Agent Safety: How Benign User Instructions Expose Critical Vulnerabilities in Computer-Use Agentscited by 12
  6. 2026LPS-Bench: Benchmarking Safety Awareness of Computer-Use Agents in Long-Horizon Planning under Benign and Adversarial Scenarioscited by 9
  7. 2026TRACE: Task-Aware Adaptive Self-Evolving Agentic Jailbreakingcited by 7
  8. 2026Seven simple steps for log analysis in AI systemscited by 6
  9. 2026Monitoring the Internal Monologue: Probe Trajectories Reveal Reasoning Dynamicscited by 5
  10. 2026Multi-Agent AI Control: Distributed Attacks Hamper Per-Instance Monitorscited by 5
  11. 2026Expected Harm: Rethinking Safety Evaluation of (Mis)Aligned LLMscited by 4
  12. 2026MOSAIC-Bench: Measuring Compositional Vulnerability Induction in Coding Agentscited by 3
13 more
  1. 2026Helpful to a Fault: Measuring Illicit Assistance in Multi-Turn, Multilingual LLM Agentscited by 2
  2. 2025Beyond Context: Large Language Models' Failure to Grasp Users' Intentcited by 1
  3. 2026Decomposition Attacks Across Unlinkable Identities: Limits of Stateful Defenses for LLM Servicescited by 1
  4. 2026A Multi-Turn Framework for Evaluating AI Misuse in Fraud and Cybercrime Scenarioscited by 0
  5. 2026One Turn Too Late: Learning When to Intervene Against Multi-Turn Malicious Intentcited by 0
  6. 2026Stateful Online Monitoring Catches Distributed Agent Attackscited by 0
  7. 2026Benign Inputs, Harmful Outputs: Cross-Modal Jailbreaking via Distributed Semantic Recompositioncited by 0
  8. 2026Coherence Maximization Improves Pluralistic Alignmentcited by 0
  9. 2026MIND: Lightweight and Effective Memory Injection Defense for LLM Agents via Intent-Aware Information Bottleneckcited by 0
  10. 2026Cross-Session Decomposition Attacks: Scaling Risk and Intent-Aligned Retrieval Defensecited by 0
  11. 2026The Safeguard Worked. Is the LLM System Safer?cited by 0
  12. 2026Divide, Consult, Conquer: Capability Laundering Through Aligned LLMscited by 0
  13. 2026Towards a Unified Misuse Monitoring Benchmarkcited by 0

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026The Price of Safety: Benign-Case Utility and Token Overhead of Memory-Poisoning Defenses in LLM Agents
  2. 2026Why Formal Monitors Fail: Attack Distribution Entropy as a Coverage Bound for LTL-Based LLM Agent Safety
  3. 2024Root Defence Strategies: Ensuring Safety of LLM at the Decoding Level
  4. 2026Prompted to Discriminate: Generalizing Malicious-Input Probes in the Wild
  5. 2026Safeguarding LLMs via Model-Agnostic Latent Safety Signals from Dark Knowledge
  6. 2025Friend or Foe: How LLMs' Safety Mind Gets Fooled by Intent Shift Attack
  7. 2026Prompt Attack Detection with LLM-as-a-Judge and Mixture-of-Models
  8. 2026RecurGuard: Runtime Monitoring for Reasoning-Token Consumption Attacks