Haihao Liu

Max Zhang, Derek Liu, Kai Zhang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed worldwide, yet their safety alignment remains predominantly English-centric. This allows for vulnerabilities in non-English contexts, especially with low-resource languages. We introduce a novel application of knowledge distillation (KD) in the context of multilingual jailbreak prevention, examining its efficacy. We distill the refusal behaviors of a proprietary teacher model (OpenAI o1-mini) with Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) into three open-source student models: Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct, Gemma-2-2B-IT, and Qwen3-8B, using ~28,000 multilingual jailbreak prompts from XSafety via black-box response-based, parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). Evaluation on the MultiJail benchmark reveals a counterintuitive behavior: standard fine-tuning on the teacher's ``safe'' refusal data inadvertently increases Jailbreak Success Rate (JSR) for all student models, up to 16.6 percentage points. Our experiments reveal a divergent generalization to unseen languages during distillation, with varying outcomes depending on the base model. By removing a primary source of safety degradation, nuanced `boundary' refusals, we mitigate or even reverse safety declines in student models, although reductions in reasoning performance (GSM8K) persist. Overall, our exploratory study highlights the challenges and potential of KD as a technique for multilingual safety alignment, offering a foundation for future research in this direction.

Lang Xiong, Nishant Bhargava, Jianhang Hong et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit significant behavioral shifts when they perceive a change from a real-world deployment context to a controlled evaluation setting, a phenomenon known as "evaluation awareness." This discrepancy poses a critical challenge for AI alignment, as benchmark performance may not accurately reflect a model's true safety and honesty. In this work, we systematically quantify these behavioral changes by manipulating the perceived context of prompts. We introduce a methodology that uses a linear probe to score prompts on a continuous scale from "test-like" to "deploy-like" and leverage an LLM rewriting strategy to shift these prompts towards a more natural, deployment-style context while preserving the original task. Using this method, we achieved a 30% increase in the average probe score across a strategic role-playing dataset after rewriting. Evaluating a suite of state-of-the-art models on these original and rewritten prompts, we find that rewritten "deploy-like" prompts induce a significant and consistent shift in behavior. Across all models, we observed an average increase in honest responses of 5.26% and a corresponding average decrease in deceptive responses of 12.40%. Furthermore, refusal rates increased by an average of 6.38%, indicating heightened safety compliance. Our findings demonstrate that evaluation awareness is a quantifiable and manipulable factor that directly influences LLM behavior, revealing that models are more prone to unsafe or deceptive outputs in perceived test environments. This underscores the urgent need for more realistic evaluation frameworks to accurately gauge true model alignment before deployment.