# Systematic Scaling Analysis of Jailbreak Attacks in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.11149 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.11149/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Jailbreaking, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 22 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Mar 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM safety and security / [Jailbreaking](https://mlsanity.com/safety/jailbreaking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04249/) (2024)
- [Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08419/) (2023)
- [AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04451/) (2023)
- [Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automatically](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02119/) (2023)
- [JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01318/) (2024)
- [Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.02151/) (2024)
- [Freeze-Thaw Bayesian Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1406.3896/) (2014)
- [The Shape of Learning Curves: a Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.10948/) (2021)
- [Semantic Mirror Jailbreak: Genetic Algorithm Based Jailbreak Prompts Against Open-source LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14872/) (2024)
- [When LLM Meets DRL: Advancing Jailbreaking Efficiency via DRL-guided Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08705/) (2024)
- [A Mousetrap: Fooling Large Reasoning Models for Jailbreak with Chain of Iterative Chaos](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15806/) (2025)
- [GPT-4 Jailbreaks Itself with Near-Perfect Success Using Self-Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13077/) (2024)
- [RL-JACK: Reinforcement Learning-powered Black-box Jailbreaking Attack against LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08725/) (2024)
- [Scaling Laws for Adversarial Attacks on Language Model Activations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02780/) (2023)
- [Multi-Turn Jailbreaks Are Simpler Than They Seem](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07646/) (2025)
- [STACK: Adversarial Attacks on LLM Safeguard Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.24068/) (2025)
- [Scaling Laws for Black box Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16782/) (2024)
- [Capability-Based Scaling Trends for LLM-Based Red-Teaming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.20162/) (2025)
- [VERA: Variational Inference Framework for Jailbreaking Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22666/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Fair ASR: Re-Evaluating Black-Box Jailbreaks under Shared Target-Call Budgets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.17360/) (2026)
- [The Safeguard Worked. Is the LLM System Safer?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00519/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks, yet we still lack a systematic understanding of how jailbreak success scales with attacker effort across methods, model families, and harm types. We initiate a scaling-law framework for jailbreaks by treating each attack as a compute-bounded optimization procedure and measuring progress on a shared FLOPs axis. Our systematic evaluation spans four representative jailbreak paradigms, covering optimization-based attacks, self-refinement prompting, sampling-based selection, and genetic optimization, across multiple model families and scales on a diverse set of harmful goals. We investigate scaling laws that relate attacker budget to attack success score by fitting a simple saturating exponential function to FLOPs--success trajectories, and we derive comparable efficiency summaries from the fitted curves. Empirically, prompting-based paradigms tend to be the most compute-efficient compared to optimization-based methods. To explain this gap, we cast prompt-based updates into an optimization view and show via a same-state comparison that prompt-based attacks more effectively optimize in prompt space. We also show that attacks occupy distinct success--stealthiness operating points with prompting-based methods occupying the high-success, high-stealth region. Finally, we find that vulnerability is strongly goal-dependent: harms involving misinformation are typically easier to elicit than other non-misinformation harms.