Safety Targeted Embedding Exploit via Refinement
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Safety training for large language models (LLMs) is conducted predominantly in English, leaving uncertain how well safety mechanisms generalize to low-resource languages and mixed-language code-switching. We show that this creates an epistemic gap in which models confidently generate harmful responses for inputs that fall outside the distribution of their safety training. To study this phenomenon, we introduce STEER (Safety Targeted Embedding Exploit via Refinement), a gradient-guided attack that identifies words contributing most strongly to the model's refusal behavior and iteratively translates them into low-resource languages to suppress refusal while preserving harmful intent. Across six open-source 8B-parameter models, STEER achieves attack success rates of up to 93.0% on JailbreakBench and 96.7% on AdvBench, outperforming random code-switching and Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG). The resulting prompts also transfer to GPT-4o-mini, achieving a 35.5% attack success rate without requiring access to the target model, suggesting that the underlying weakness is not specific to a single architecture. These findings demonstrate that safety mechanisms aligned primarily on English cannot be assumed to generalize across multilingual inputs. We argue that improving multilingual safety requires broader coverage during alignment and mechanisms that explicitly detect and abstain on out-of-distribution inputs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2026.
Builds on
20 of 20 references.
References · 20
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
- 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,326
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 983
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
- 2023AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Modelscited by 738
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learnedcited by 702
8 more
- 2023Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automaticallycited by 619
- 2024JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Modelscited by 494
- 2023Multilingual Jailbreak Challenges in Large Language Modelscited by 222
- 2025The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models: Concept Cones and Representational Independencecited by 104
- 2024Code-Switching Red-Teaming: LLM Evaluation for Safety and Multilingual Understandingcited by 34
- 2024Sandwich attack: Multi-language Mixture Adaptive Attack on LLMscited by 20
- 2025Multi-lingual Multi-turn Automated Red Teaming for LLMscited by 12
- 2025The Tower of Babel Revisited: Multilingual Jailbreak Prompts on Closed-Source Large Language Modelscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.