mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Cross-Generational Transfer of Adversarial Attacks Reveals Non-Monotonic Safety Alignment in LLMs

arXiv 2606.00813 ↗First posted 30 May 2026cs.CR cs.CL cs.ETcited by 1

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Safety alignment in LLMs does not improve monotonically across model generations. Studying four generations of Google's Gemma family (7B-31B) with quality-diversity evolution (MAP-Elites) as an automated red-teaming probe, we find that Gemma 3 (12B) exhibits 68.7% +/- 5.7% attack success rate (ASR; mean +/- std, 3 seeds), significantly higher than its predecessor Gemma 2 (45.5% +/- 7.2%; p = 0.030, paired bootstrap) and its successor Gemma 4 (33.9% +/- 1.8%). Replaying evolved attack archives across generations reveals that attacks from other generations transfer to Gemma 3 at 44-46% but only 14-18% to Gemma 4, indicating that Gemma 4's safety gains generalize beyond the attack distributions evolved against earlier generations. Under our 8B judge, copyright and cybercrime vulnerabilities register at near-100% across all generations, though a second-judge audit (Section 6) suggests the copyright result is sensitive to judge choice. Misinformation ASR jumps from 29% to 99% between Gemma 2 and Gemma 3 and remains elevated at 77% in Gemma 4, indicating the regression was not fully addressed. These patterns are invisible to static benchmarks and emerge only through adaptive, longitudinal probing. All experiments use 3 random seeds with a unified self-hosted judge; code and artifacts are available at https://github.com/bassrehab/red-queen.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 9 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2026.

Builds on

9 of 12 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models3 Oct
  2. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models27 Jul

Other references · 7

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
  2. 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 2,927
  3. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
  4. 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,326
  5. 2015Illuminating search spaces by mapping elitescited by 406
  6. 2014Robots that can adapt like animalscited by 203
  7. 2019Covariance Matrix Adaptation for the Rapid Illumination of Behavior Spacecited by 78

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Adversarial Attack-Defense Co-Evolution for LLM Safety Alignment via Tree-Group Dual-Aware Search and Optimization
  2. 2026Safety Is Not Universal: The Selective Safety Trap in LLM Alignment
  3. 2026Into the Gray Zone: Domain Contexts Can Blur LLM Safety Boundaries
  4. 2026Co-Evolutionary Multi-Modal Alignment via Structured Adversarial Evolution
  5. 2025Adversarial Alignment for LLMs Requires Simpler, Reproducible, and More Measurable Objectives
  6. 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep
  7. 2025Lifelong Safety Alignment for Language Models
  8. 2026When Safe Models Merge into Danger: Exploiting Latent Vulnerabilities in LLM Fusion