# Intent-Hiding Jailbreaks: An Information-Theoretic Framework for Compositional Attacks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02302 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.02302/

## 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 23 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [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)
- [Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08419/) (2023)
- [Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06674/) (2023)
- [Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.07705/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00093/) (2023)
- [JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01318/) (2024)
- ["Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03825/) (2023)
- [DeepInception: Hypnotize Large Language Model to Be Jailbreaker](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.03191/) (2023)
- [A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real World](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.03274/) (2022)
- [A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Generalized Nested Jailbreak Prompts can Fool Large Language Models Easily](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08268/) (2023)
- [Prompt Packer: Deceiving LLMs through Compositional Instruction with Hidden Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10077/) (2023)
- [How Many Instructions Can LLMs Follow at Once?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11538/) (2025)
- [SequentialBreak: Large Language Models Can be Fooled by Embedding Jailbreak Prompts into Sequential Prompt Chains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.06426/) (2024)
- [Fundamental Limits of Perfect Concept Erasure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20098/) (2025)
- [The Great Contradiction Showdown: How Jailbreak and Stealth Wrestle in Vision-Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.01438/) (2024)
- [Asymmetric Leaky Private Information Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.03048/) (2020)
- [Latent-variable Private Information Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.05998/) (2020)
- [A Theoretical Game of Attacks via Compositional Skills](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.01034/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent work has shown that large language models (LLMs) can be vulnerable to jailbreak attacks in which harmful intent is obscured through composition with benign tasks. A harmful request refused in isolation may elicit a different response when embedded within a larger, seemingly benign query. We study these compositional intent-hiding jailbreaks from an information-theoretic perspective. Our formulation associates each task with an estimated probability of being judged harmful: the average over the full task collection defines the prior probability of harmful intent, while the average over a selected bundle containing the target defines the posterior. Selecting auxiliary tasks so that these averages agree, which we call prior-posterior matching, leaves the estimated intent unchanged even though the harmful target remains in the bundle. We study two settings that differ in whether query construction is part of the optimization. In the query-independent setting, tasks are selected without regard to how they will be expressed in the final query. We show that exact prior-posterior matching under a bundle-size constraint is computationally hard, derive an optimal water-filling solution for fractional weights, and characterize the smallest bundle satisfying a prescribed safety threshold. In the query-dependent setting, task selection and query construction are considered jointly, and intent concealment and target preservation are evaluated on the resulting query. We evaluate jailbreak effectiveness and preservation of the target behavior across bundle sizes, query generators, and several open-source models. These results show that compositional queries can elicit target behaviors beyond the direct-request baseline under the evaluated search budgets, while revealing a trade-off: as bundle size increases, response-level target preservation tends to decrease for several models.