As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into academic peer review, their vulnerability to adversarial prompts -- adversarial instructions embedded in submissions to manipulate outcomes -- emerges as a critical threat to scholarly integrity. To counter this, we propose a novel adversarial framework where a Generator model, trained to create sophisticated attack prompts, is jointly optimized with a Defender model tasked with their detection. This system is trained using a loss function inspired by Information Retrieval Generative Adversarial Networks, which fosters a dynamic co-evolution between the two models, forcing the Defender to develop robust capabilities against continuously improving attack strategies. The resulting framework demonstrates significantly enhanced resilience to novel and evolving threats compared to static defenses, thereby establishing a critical foundation for securing the integrity of peer review.

As Spoken Language Models (SLMs) integrate speech and text modalities, they inherit the safety vulnerabilities of their LLM backbone and an expanded attack surface. SLMs have been previously shown to be susceptible to jailbreaking, where adversarial prompts induce harmful responses. Yet existing attacks largely remain unimodal, optimizing either text or audio in isolation. We explore gradient-based multimodal jailbreaks by introducing JAMA (Joint Audio-text Multimodal Attack), a joint multimodal optimization framework combining Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) for text and Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) for audio, to simultaneously perturb both modalities. Evaluations across four state-of-the-art SLMs and four audio types demonstrate that JAMA surpasses unimodal jailbreak rate by 1.5x to 10x. We analyze the operational dynamics of this joint attack and show that a sequential approximation method makes it 4x to 6x faster. Our findings suggest that unimodal safety is insufficient for robust SLMs. The code and data are available at https://repos.lsv.uni-saarland.de/akrishnan/multimodal-jailbreak-slm

AI-text detectors achieve high accuracy on in-domain benchmarks, but often struggle to generalize across different generation conditions such as unseen prompts, model families, or domains. While prior work has reported these generalization gaps, there are limited insights about the underlying causes. In this work, we present a systematic study aimed at explaining generalization behavior through linguistic analysis. We construct a comprehensive benchmark that spans 6 prompting strategies, 7 large language models (LLMs), and 4 domain datasets, resulting in a diverse set of human- and AI-generated texts. Using this dataset, we fine-tune classification-based detectors on various generation settings and evaluate their cross-prompt, cross-model, and cross-dataset generalization. To explain the performance variance, we compute correlations between generalization accuracies and feature shifts of 80 linguistic features between training and test conditions. Our analysis reveals that generalization performance for specific detectors and evaluation conditions is significantly associated with linguistic features such as tense usage and pronoun frequency.

Fine-tuning lets practitioners repurpose aligned large language models (LLMs) for new domains, yet recent work reveals emergent misalignment (EMA): Even a small, domain-specific fine-tune can induce harmful behaviors far outside the target domain. Even in the case where model weights are hidden behind a fine-tuning API, this gives attackers inadvertent access to a broadly misaligned model in a way that can be hard to detect from the fine-tuning data alone. We present the first systematic study of in-training safeguards against EMA that are practical for providers who expose fine-tuning via an API. We investigate four training regularization interventions: (i) KL-divergence regularization toward a safe reference model, (ii) $\ell_2$ distance in feature space, (iii) projecting onto a safe subspace (SafeLoRA), and (iv) interleaving of a small amount of safe training examples from a general instruct-tuning dataset. We first evaluate the methods' emergent misalignment effect across four malicious, EMA-inducing tasks. Second, we assess the methods' impacts on benign tasks. We conclude with a discussion of open questions in emergent misalignment research.