Dongcheng Zhao

The remarkable capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have raised significant safety concerns, particularly regarding "jailbreak" attacks that exploit adversarial prompts to bypass safety alignment mechanisms. Existing defense research primarily focuses on single-turn attacks, whereas multi-turn jailbreak attacks progressively break through safeguards through by concealing malicious intent and tactical manipulation, ultimately rendering conventional single-turn defenses ineffective. To address this critical challenge, we propose the Bidirectional Intention Inference Defense (BIID). The method integrates forward request-based intention inference with backward response-based intention retrospection, establishing a bidirectional synergy mechanism to detect risks concealed within seemingly benign inputs, thereby constructing a more robust guardrails that effectively prevents harmful content generation. The proposed method undergoes systematic evaluation compared with a no-defense baseline and seven representative defense methods across three LLMs and two safety benchmarks under 10 different attack methods. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method significantly reduces the Attack Success Rate (ASR) across both single-turn and multi-turn jailbreak attempts, outperforming all existing baseline methods while effectively maintaining practical utility. Notably, comparative experiments across three multi-turn safety datasets further validate the proposed model's significant advantages over other defense approaches.

Ensuring Large Language Model (LLM) safety remains challenging due to the absence of universal standards and reliable content validators, making it difficult to obtain effective training signals. We discover that aligned models already possess robust internal safety beliefs: they consistently produce high-confidence refusals to harmful requests while exhibiting high entropy when generating potentially dangerous content. This entropy gap reveals an untapped signal--models intrinsically "know" when to refuse. We introduce Safety Instincts Reinforcement Learning (SIRL), which transforms this internal confidence into a self-generated reward signal, eliminating dependence on external validators or human annotations. SIRL teaches models to trust their safety instincts by reinforcing low-entropy refusal behaviors. Evaluated on Llama and Qwen models, SIRL maintains 89%+ Defense Success Rates (DSRs) against 20+ jailbreak methods, from static prompts to adaptive attacks. Using only 15,000 unlabeled prompts, SIRL surpasses resource-intensive supervised methods while preserving performance on mathematics, coding, and conversation benchmarks. Our work demonstrates that effective alignment can emerge from within, paving the way for more autonomous and robust AI safety mechanisms that scale without extensive human oversight.

Safety evaluation of large language models (LLMs) increasingly relies on LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, but the high cost of frontier models limits scalability. We propose a cost-efficient multi-agent judging framework that employs Small Language Models (SLMs) through structured debates among critic, defender, and judge agents. To rigorously assess safety judgments, we construct HAJailBench, a large-scale human-annotated jailbreak benchmark comprising 12,000 adversarial interactions across diverse attack methods and target models. The dataset provides fine-grained, expert-labeled ground truth for evaluating both safety robustness and judge reliability. Our SLM-based framework achieves agreement comparable to GPT-4o judges on HAJailBench while substantially reducing inference cost. Ablation results show that three rounds of debate yield the optimal balance between accuracy and efficiency. These findings demonstrate that structured, value-aligned debate enables SLMs to capture semantic nuances of jailbreak attacks and that HAJailBench offers a reliable foundation for scalable LLM safety evaluation.

Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) utilize spike-based activations to mimic the brain's energy-efficient information processing. However, the binary and discontinuous nature of spike activations causes vanishing gradients, making adversarial robustness evaluation via gradient descent unreliable. While improved surrogate gradient methods have been proposed, their effectiveness under strong adversarial attacks remains unclear. We propose a more reliable framework for evaluating SNN adversarial robustness. We theoretically analyze the degree of gradient vanishing in surrogate gradients and introduce the Adaptive Sharpness Surrogate Gradient (ASSG), which adaptively evolves the shape of the surrogate function according to the input distribution during attack iterations, thereby enhancing gradient accuracy while mitigating gradient vanishing. In addition, we design an adversarial attack with adaptive step size under the $L_\infty$ constraint-Stable Adaptive Projected Gradient Descent (SA-PGD), achieving faster and more stable convergence under imprecise gradients. Extensive experiments show that our approach substantially increases attack success rates across diverse adversarial training schemes, SNN architectures and neuron models, providing a more generalized and reliable evaluation of SNN adversarial robustness. The experimental results further reveal that the robustness of current SNNs has been significantly overestimated and highlighting the need for more dependable adversarial training methods. The code is released at https://github.com/craree/ASSG-SNNs-Robustness-Evaluation