Papers › DistillSeq: A Framework for Safety Alignment Testing in Large Language Models using...
DistillSeq: A Framework for Safety Alignment Testing in Large Language Models using Knowledge Distillation
Mingke Yang, Yuqi Chen, Yi Liu, Ling Shi
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased their remarkable capabilities in diverse domains, encompassing natural language understanding, translation, and even code generation. The potential for LLMs to generate harmful content is a significant concern. This risk necessitates rigorous testing and comprehensive evaluation of LLMs to ensure safe and responsible use. However, extensive testing of LLMs requires substantial computational resources, making it an expensive endeavor. Therefore, exploring cost-saving strategies during the testing phase is crucial to balance the need for thorough evaluation with the constraints of resource availability. To address this, our approach begins by transferring the moderation knowledge from an LLM to a small model. Subsequently, we deploy two distinct strategies for generating malicious queries: one based on a syntax tree approach, and the other leveraging an LLM-based method. Finally, our approach incorporates a sequential filter-test process designed to identify test cases that are prone to eliciting toxic responses. Our research evaluated the efficacy of DistillSeq across four LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4.0, Vicuna-13B, and Llama-13B. In the absence of DistillSeq, the observed attack success rates on these LLMs stood at 31.5% for GPT-3.5, 21.4% for GPT-4.0, 28.3% for Vicuna-13B, and 30.9% for Llama-13B. However, upon the application of DistillSeq, these success rates notably increased to 58.5%, 50.7%, 52.5%, and 54.4%, respectively. This translated to an average escalation in attack success rate by a factor of 93.0% when compared to scenarios without the use of DistillSeq. Such findings highlight the significant enhancement DistillSeq offers in terms of reducing the time and resource investment required for effectively testing LLMs.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2407.10106")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
2 samples harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 2 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from DistillSeq/DistillSeq. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
91c9daa52935f8c5 · report
ac470a8a61464260 · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections