Papers › Jailbreaking as a Reward Misspecification Problem
Jailbreaking as a Reward Misspecification Problem
Zhihui Xie, Jiahui Gao, Lei LI, Zhenguo Li, Qi Liu, Lingpeng Kong
The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) has raised concerns about their safety and reliability, particularly regarding their vulnerability to adversarial attacks. In this paper, we propose a novel perspective that attributes this vulnerability to reward misspecification during the alignment process. This misspecification occurs when the reward function fails to accurately capture the intended behavior, leading to misaligned model outputs. We introduce a metric ReGap to quantify the extent of reward misspecification and demonstrate its effectiveness and robustness in detecting harmful backdoor prompts. Building upon these insights, we present ReMiss, a system for automated red teaming that generates adversarial prompts in a reward-misspecified space. ReMiss achieves state-of-the-art attack success rates on the AdvBench benchmark against various target aligned LLMs while preserving the human readability of the generated prompts. Furthermore, these attacks on open-source models demonstrate high transferability to closed-source models like GPT-4o and out-of-distribution tasks from HarmBench. Detailed analysis highlights the unique advantages of the proposed reward misspecification objective compared to previous methods, offering new insights for improving LLM safety and robustness.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
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="2406.14393")
Code
Syntology Ran 7 of 15 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 8 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · honoured contract; 2 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it; 2 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 15 samples from 1 repository, 7 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
15 samples harvested; 7 ran; 2 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 15 of the 15 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 zhxieml/remiss-jailbreak. “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.
f7e6ed8ae82ad71f · report
b33c78601d890827 · report
421d4ba5e59039da · report
298878ca905883f4 · report
a70d14fb2791dd29 · report
249485c3fcfb764e · report
b5c4e0c154efef64 · report
b50e2d1935c06431 · report
bf9d280eb54736b7 · report
e1f298fad7ae62ed · report
02fbdc293c7c022f · report
9f311245e1b7a581 · report
4d986a6e6f39f5ce · report
09209b225f2ff6e0 · report
773e7f99aa71d7e3 · report
Tasks
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