The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making Them Ask and Answer: Jailbreaking Large Language Models in Few Queries via Disguise and Reconstruction
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated notable success across various tasks, but the trustworthiness of LLMs is still an open problem. One specific threat is the potential to generate toxic or harmful responses. Attackers can craft adversarial prompts that induce harmful responses from LLMs. In this work, we pioneer a theoretical foundation in LLMs security by identifying bias vulnerabilities within the safety fine-tuning and design a black-box jailbreak method named DRA (Disguise and Reconstruction Attack), which conceals harmful instructions through disguise and prompts the model to reconstruct the original harmful instruction within its completion. We evaluate DRA across various open-source and closed-source models, showcasing state-of-the-art jailbreak success rates and attack efficiency. Notably, DRA boasts a 91.1% attack success rate on OpenAI GPT-4 chatbot.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous research on jailbreaking has primarily explored its implications in the context of catastrophic risks in the general domain-cases where models are manipulated to produce extreme content, such as violence, hate speech, or other harmful material.
“Previous research on jailbreaking has primarily explored its implications in the context of catastrophic risks in the general domain—cases where models are manipulated to produce extreme content, such as violence, hate speech, or other harmful material25–27.”
From When helpfulness backfires: LLMs and the risk of false medical information due to sycophantic behavior (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Citations
Cites
Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06825 · Cited by 340
Zeng, Y., Lin, H., Zhang, J., Yang, D., Jia, R., & Shi, W. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.06373 · Cited by 174
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chen, S., Gao, M., Sasse, K., Hartvigsen, T., Anthony, B., Fan, L., Aerts, H., Gallifant, J., & Bitterman, D. S. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-02008-z · Cited by 112
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, T., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Z., Dong, Y., Meng, G., & Chen, K.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2402.18104
- OpenAlex
- W4392340212
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (92270204, 62276149)
- Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Beijing Nova Program
- Youth Innovation Promotion Association
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Security and Verification in Computing
- Keywords
- black-box attacks, adversarial prompts, DRA, LLM security, GPT-4
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review