# On the Hardness of Junking LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05116 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.05116/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Jailbreaking, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 43 of its 53 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 May 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 43)

- [PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.01703/) (2019)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.07805/) (2020)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04249/) (2024)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08419/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [Red Teaming Language Models with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03286/) (2022)
- [AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04451/) (2023)
- [Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.07125/) (2019)
- [Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automatically](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02119/) (2023)
- [How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06373/) (2024)
- [GPTFUZZER: Red Teaming Large Language Models with Auto-Generated Jailbreak Prompts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10253/) (2023)
- [Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.02151/) (2024)
- [Hard Prompts Made Easy: Gradient-Based Discrete Optimization for Prompt Tuning and Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.03668/) (2023)
- [Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.05733/) (2023)
- [Gradient-based Adversarial Attacks against Text Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.13733/) (2021)
- [Scalable and Transferable Black-Box Jailbreaks for Language Models via Persona Modulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.03348/) (2023)
- [AutoDAN-Turbo: A Lifelong Agent for Strategy Self-Exploration to Jailbreak LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05295/) (2024)
- [Automatically Auditing Large Language Models via Discrete Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.04381/) (2023)
- [Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attacks Through Goal Prioritization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09096/) (2023)
- [Open Sesame! Universal Black Box Jailbreaking of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.01446/) (2023)
- [A Comprehensive Study of Jailbreak Attack versus Defense for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13457/) (2024)
- [Attacking Large Language Models with Projected Gradient Descent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.09154/) (2024)
- [Coercing LLMs to do and reveal (almost) anything](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14020/) (2024)
- [A Survey on LLM-based Code Generation for Low-Resource and Domain-Specific Programming Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03981/) (2024)
- [Query-Based Adversarial Prompt Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12329/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are known to be vulnerable to jailbreak attacks, which typically rely on carefully designed prompts containing explicit semantic structure. These attacks generally operate by fixing an adversarial instruction and optimizing small adversarial components (e.g., suffixes or prefixes). In this setting, prompt structure is fundamental for performance, and recent results show that even simple random search can achieve strong performance when combined with sophisticated prompt design. Recently, it has been observed that harmful behaviors can be elicited even without the adversarial prompt, relying solely on optimized token sequences. This suggests the existence of natural backdoors, i.e., token sequences naturally emerged during LLMs training that trigger unsafe outputs without any meaningful instruction. However, despite these observations, this setting remains largely unexplored, and in particular the hardness of finding natural backdoors has not been assessed yet. In this work, we provide a first proof-of-concept study investigating the hardness of this task, which we refer to as the junking problem. We formalize it as the problem of finding token sequences that maximize the probability of generating a target prefix of harmful responses, propose a greedy random-search method to assess is such sequences can be discovered easily. Our results show that this problem is harder than standard jailbreak attacks, confirming the importance of semantic information in prompt design. At the same time, we find that our simple strategy is sufficient to solve it with a high success rate, suggesting that natural backdoors are present and easily recoverable. Finally, through perplexity analysis, we observe that the discovered token sequences lie in low-probability regions of the model distribution, supporting the hypothesis that they emerged implicitly from the training process.