# When LLM Defenses Backfire: Characterizing Safety, Performance, and Cost Trade-offs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24392 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.24392/

## 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 28 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 28 of 28)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14219/) (2024)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06674/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V2: A Strong, Economical, and Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04434/) (2024)
- [OpenAssistant Conversations -- Democratizing Large Language Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.07327/) (2023)
- [Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00614/) (2023)
- [XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01263/) (2023)
- [SmoothLLM: Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03684/) (2023)
- [Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14132/) (2023)
- [Jailbreak and Guard Aligned Language Models with Only Few In-Context Demonstrations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06387/) (2023)
- [Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08417/) (2024)
- [TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05561/) (2024)
- [SafeDecoding: Defending against Jailbreak Attacks via Safety-Aware Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08983/) (2024)
- [LLM Self Defense: By Self Examination, LLMs Know They Are Being Tricked](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07308/) (2023)
- [OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20947/) (2024)
- [SALAD-Bench: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Safety Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05044/) (2024)
- [Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attacks Through Goal Prioritization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09096/) (2023)
- [A Comprehensive Study of Jailbreak Attack versus Defense for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13457/) (2024)
- [Intention Analysis Makes LLMs A Good Jailbreak Defender](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06561/) (2024)
- [Defending LLMs against Jailbreaking Attacks via Backtranslation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16459/) (2024)
- [The Art of Defending: A Systematic Evaluation and Analysis of LLM Defense Strategies on Safety and Over-Defensiveness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00287/) (2023)
- [LLM4Decompile: Decompiling Binary Code with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05286/) (2024)
- [LLMs Can Defend Themselves Against Jailbreaking in a Practical Manner: A Vision Paper](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15727/) (2024)
- [You Can't Eat Your Cake and Have It Too: The Performance Degradation of LLMs with Jailbreak Defense](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12210/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Jailbreak defenses are essential for protecting large language models (LLMs), but they can also introduce secondary costs that weaken model utility. We present a systematic study of these defense trade-offs along three dimensions: performance impact, over-refusal on benign inputs, and inference cost. Rather than treating defenses as a single class, we organize them by operational strategy and examine how different strategies correlate with different side-effect profiles. Across state-of-the-art defense methods, widely used benchmark datasets, and representative open-source LLMs, we find that defenses rarely improve downstream capability, but instead vary in how they trade safety gains against usability and efficiency. In particular, rule-based defenses best preserve task performance, highly conservative self-reflective defenses often increase over-refusal, and multi-round defenses incur the largest runtime overhead. These results provide both a benchmark for evaluating defense side effects and practical guidance for selecting defenses under deployment constraints.