atlas

Research map / Large language models / Language, safety and interpretability

LLM Stinger: Jailbreaking LLMs Using RL Fine-Tuned LLMs (Student Abstract)

AAAI 2025 · Large language models › Language, safety and interpretability · approach: Jailbreak attacks and defenses · 2 citations (OpenAlex)

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Fine-tunes a Gemma-2B-it attacker LLM with PPO-based RL to generate adversarial suffixes that jailbreak black-box victim LLMs on HarmBench.

Problem

Automating jailbreak suffix generation against safety-trained LLMs, which existing methods do with heavy prompt engineering or white-box gradient access, is laborious and does not scale.

Approach

An attacker LLM is fine-tuned in an RL loop using binary judge feedback plus a string-similarity token-level signal, so it learns to produce new suffixes modeled on known successful universal suffixes, requiring only black-box access to victims.

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
Use LLM STINGER instead of GCGattacks on Llama2-7B-chat · HarmBench standard behaviours test split, Llama2-7B-chatattack success rate: 32.1 -> 89.3Helped
Use LLM STINGER instead of GCGattacks on Vicuna-7B · HarmBench standard behaviours test split, Vicuna-7Battack success rate: 89.9 -> 93.08Helped
Use LLM STINGER instead of PAIRattacks on Claude 2 · HarmBench standard behaviours test split, Claude 2attack success rate: 1.9 -> 52.2Helped
Use LLM STINGER instead of PAIRattacks on Claude 2.1 · HarmBench standard behaviours test split, Claude 2.1attack success rate: 2.5 -> 26.4Helped
Use LLM STINGER instead of TAP-Tattacks on GPT 3.5 Turbo 0613 · HarmBench standard behaviours test split, GPT 3.5 Turbo 0613attack success rate: 78.6 -> 88.67Helped
Use LLM STINGER instead of TAP-Tattacks on GPT 3.5 Turbo 1106 · HarmBench standard behaviours test split, GPT 3.5 Turbo 1106attack success rate: 60.4 -> 94.97Helped
Use LLM STINGER instead of TAP-Tattacks on GPT 4 Turbo 1106 · HarmBench standard behaviours test split, GPT 4 Turbo 1106attack success rate: 81.8 -> 80.50Hurt
Use LLM STINGERattacks on Gemma-2B-it · Gemma-2B-itattack success rate: 99.4%Helped

Surprising findings

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: HarmBench standard behaviors GCG public suffixes

Benchmarks: HarmBench standard behaviors test split

Metrics: attack success rate

Baselines: GCG GCG-M GCG-T PEZ GBDA UAT AP SFS ZS PAIR TAP TAP-T

Builds on: GCG HarmBench PPO

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy