When Understanding Becomes a Risk: Authenticity and Safety Risks in the Emerging Image Generation Paradigm

Recently, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have emerged as a unified paradigm for language and image generation. Compared with diffusion models, MLLMs possess a much stronger capability for semantic understanding, enabling them to process more complex textual inputs and comprehend richer contextual meanings. However, this enhanced semantic ability may also introduce new and potentially greater safety risks. Taking diffusion models as a reference point, we systematically analyze and compare the safety risks of emerging MLLMs along two dimensions: unsafe content generation and fake image synthesis. Across multiple unsafe generation benchmark datasets, we observe that MLLMs tend to generate more unsafe images than diffusion models. This difference partly arises because diffusion models often fail to interpret abstract prompts, producing corrupted outputs, whereas MLLMs can comprehend these prompts and generate unsafe content. For current advanced fake image detectors, MLLM-generated images are also notably harder to identify. Even when detectors are retrained with MLLMs-specific data, they can still be bypassed by simply providing MLLMs with longer and more descriptive inputs. Our measurements indicate that the emerging safety risks of the cutting-edge generative paradigm, MLLMs, have not been sufficiently recognized, posing new challenges to real-world safety.

Understanding LLM Behavior When Encountering User-Supplied Harmful Content in Harmless Tasks

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to align with human values, primarily focusing on task level, i.e., refusing to execute directly harmful tasks. However, a subtle yet crucial content-level ethical question is often overlooked: when performing a seemingly benign task, will LLMs -- like morally conscious human beings -- refuse to proceed when encountering harmful content in user-provided material? In this study, we aim to understand this content-level ethical question and systematically evaluate its implications for mainstream LLMs. We first construct a harmful knowledge dataset (i.e., non-compliant with OpenAI's usage policy) to serve as the user-supplied harmful content, with 1,357 entries across ten harmful categories. We then design nine harmless tasks (i.e., compliant with OpenAI's usage policy) to simulate the real-world benign tasks, grouped into three categories according to the extent of user-supplied content required: extensive, moderate, and limited. Leveraging the harmful knowledge dataset and the set of harmless tasks, we evaluate how nine LLMs behave when exposed to user-supplied harmful content during the execution of benign tasks, and further examine how the dynamics between harmful knowledge categories and tasks affect different LLMs. Our results show that current LLMs, even the latest GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3-Pro, often fail to uphold human-aligned ethics by continuing to process harmful content in harmless tasks. Furthermore, external knowledge from the ``Violence/Graphic'' category and the ``Translation'' task is more likely to elicit harmful responses from LLMs. We also conduct extensive ablation studies to investigate potential factors affecting this novel misuse vulnerability. We hope that our study could inspire enhanced safety measures among stakeholders to mitigate this overlooked content-level ethical risk.

Benchmark of Benchmarks: Unpacking Influence and Code Repository Quality in LLM Safety Benchmarks

The rapid growth of research in LLM safety makes it hard to track all advances. Benchmarks are therefore crucial for capturing key trends and enabling systematic comparisons. Yet, it remains unclear why certain benchmarks gain prominence, and no systematic assessment has been conducted on their academic influence or code quality. This paper fills this gap by presenting the first multi-dimensional evaluation of the influence (based on five metrics) and code quality (based on both automated and human assessment) on LLM safety benchmarks, analyzing 31 benchmarks and 382 non-benchmarks across prompt injection, jailbreak, and hallucination. We find that benchmark papers show no significant advantage in academic influence (e.g., citation count and density) over non-benchmark papers. We uncover a key misalignment: while author prominence correlates with paper influence, neither author prominence nor paper influence shows a significant correlation with code quality. Our results also indicate substantial room for improvement in code and supplementary materials: only 39% of repositories are ready-to-use, 16% include flawless installation guides, and a mere 6% address ethical considerations. Given that the work of prominent researchers tends to attract greater attention, they need to lead the effort in setting higher standards.

DSDR: Dual-Scale Diversity Regularization for Exploration in LLM Reasoning

Reinforcement learning with verifiers (RLVR) is a central paradigm for improving large language model (LLM) reasoning, yet existing methods often suffer from limited exploration. Policies tend to collapse onto a few reasoning patterns and prematurely stop deep exploration, while conventional entropy regularization introduces only local stochasticity and fails to induce meaningful path-level diversity, leading to weak and unstable learning signals in group-based policy optimization. We propose DSDR, a Dual-Scale Diversity Regularization reinforcement learning framework that decomposes diversity in LLM reasoning into global and coupling components. Globally, DSDR promotes diversity among correct reasoning trajectories to explore distinct solution modes. Locally, it applies a length-invariant, token-level entropy regularization restricted to correct trajectories, preventing entropy collapse within each mode while preserving correctness. The two scales are coupled through a global-to-local allocation mechanism that emphasizes local regularization for more distinctive correct trajectories. We provide theoretical support showing that DSDR preserves optimal correctness under bounded regularization, sustains informative learning signals in group-based optimization, and yields a principled global-to-local coupling rule. Experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements in accuracy and pass@k, highlighting the importance of dual-scale diversity for deep exploration in RLVR. Code is available at https://github.com/SUSTechBruce/DSDR.

JADES: A Universal Framework for Jailbreak Assessment via Decompositional Scoring

Accurately determining whether a jailbreak attempt has succeeded is a fundamental yet unresolved challenge. Existing evaluation methods rely on misaligned proxy indicators or naive holistic judgments. They frequently misinterpret model responses, leading to inconsistent and subjective assessments that misalign with human perception. To address this gap, we introduce JADES (Jailbreak Assessment via Decompositional Scoring), a universal jailbreak evaluation framework. Its key mechanism is to automatically decompose an input harmful question into a set of weighted sub-questions, score each sub-answer, and weight-aggregate the sub-scores into a final decision. JADES also incorporates an optional fact-checking module to strengthen the detection of hallucinations in jailbreak responses. We validate JADES on JailbreakQR, a newly introduced benchmark proposed in this work, consisting of 400 pairs of jailbreak prompts and responses, each meticulously annotated by humans. In a binary setting (success/failure), JADES achieves 98.5% agreement with human evaluators, outperforming strong baselines by over 9%. Re-evaluating five popular attacks on four LLMs reveals substantial overestimation (e.g., LAA's attack success rate on GPT-3.5-Turbo drops from 93% to 69%). Our results show that JADES could deliver accurate, consistent, and interpretable evaluations, providing a reliable basis for measuring future jailbreak attacks.

The Ripple Effect: On Unforeseen Complications of Backdoor Attacks

Recent research highlights concerns about the trustworthiness of third-party Pre-Trained Language Models (PTLMs) due to potential backdoor attacks. These backdoored PTLMs, however, are effective only for specific pre-defined downstream tasks. In reality, these PTLMs can be adapted to many other unrelated downstream tasks. Such adaptation may lead to unforeseen consequences in downstream model outputs, consequently raising user suspicion and compromising attack stealthiness. We refer to this phenomenon as backdoor complications. In this paper, we undertake the first comprehensive quantification of backdoor complications. Through extensive experiments using 4 prominent PTLMs and 16 text classification benchmark datasets, we demonstrate the widespread presence of backdoor complications in downstream models fine-tuned from backdoored PTLMs. The output distribution of triggered samples significantly deviates from that of clean samples. Consequently, we propose a backdoor complication reduction method leveraging multi-task learning to mitigate complications without prior knowledge of downstream tasks. The experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method can effectively reduce complications while maintaining the efficacy and consistency of backdoor attacks. Our code is available at https://github.com/zhangrui4041/Backdoor_Complications.

The Challenge of Identifying the Origin of Black-Box Large Language Models

The tremendous commercial potential of large language models (LLMs) has heightened concerns about their unauthorized use. Third parties can customize LLMs through fine-tuning and offer only black-box API access, effectively concealing unauthorized usage and complicating external auditing processes. This practice not only exacerbates unfair competition, but also violates licensing agreements. In response, identifying the origin of black-box LLMs is an intrinsic solution to this issue. In this paper, we first reveal the limitations of state-of-the-art passive and proactive identification methods with experiments on 30 LLMs and two real-world black-box APIs. Then, we propose the proactive technique, PlugAE, which optimizes adversarial token embeddings in a continuous space and proactively plugs them into the LLM for tracing and identification. The experiments show that PlugAE can achieve substantial improvement in identifying fine-tuned derivatives. We further advocate for legal frameworks and regulations to better address the challenges posed by the unauthorized use of LLMs.

Synthetic Artifact Auditing: Tracing LLM-Generated Synthetic Data Usage in Downstream Applications

Large language models (LLMs) have facilitated the generation of high-quality, cost-effective synthetic data for developing downstream models and conducting statistical analyses in various domains. However, the increased reliance on synthetic data may pose potential negative impacts. Numerous studies have demonstrated that LLM-generated synthetic data can perpetuate and even amplify societal biases and stereotypes, and produce erroneous outputs known as ``hallucinations'' that deviate from factual knowledge. In this paper, we aim to audit artifacts, such as classifiers, generators, or statistical plots, to identify those trained on or derived from synthetic data and raise user awareness, thereby reducing unexpected consequences and risks in downstream applications. To this end, we take the first step to introduce synthetic artifact auditing to assess whether a given artifact is derived from LLM-generated synthetic data. We then propose an auditing framework with three methods including metric-based auditing, tuning-based auditing, and classification-based auditing. These methods operate without requiring the artifact owner to disclose proprietary training details. We evaluate our auditing framework on three text classification tasks, two text summarization tasks, and two data visualization tasks across three training scenarios. Our evaluation demonstrates the effectiveness of all proposed auditing methods across all these tasks. For instance, black-box metric-based auditing can achieve an average accuracy of $0.868 \pm 0.071$ for auditing classifiers and $0.880 \pm 0.052$ for auditing generators using only 200 random queries across three scenarios. We hope our research will enhance model transparency and regulatory compliance, ensuring the ethical and responsible use of synthetic data.

Image-Perfect Imperfections: Safety, Bias, and Authenticity in the Shadow of Text-To-Image Model Evolution

Text-to-image models, such as Stable Diffusion (SD), undergo iterative updates to improve image quality and address concerns such as safety. Improvements in image quality are straightforward to assess. However, how model updates resolve existing concerns and whether they raise new questions remain unexplored. This study takes an initial step in investigating the evolution of text-to-image models from the perspectives of safety, bias, and authenticity. Our findings, centered on Stable Diffusion, indicate that model updates paint a mixed picture. While updates progressively reduce the generation of unsafe images, the bias issue, particularly in gender, intensifies. We also find that negative stereotypes either persist within the same Non-White race group or shift towards other Non-White race groups through SD updates, yet with minimal association of these traits with the White race group. Additionally, our evaluation reveals a new concern stemming from SD updates: State-of-the-art fake image detectors, initially trained for earlier SD versions, struggle to identify fake images generated by updated versions. We show that fine-tuning these detectors on fake images generated by updated versions achieves at least 96.6\% accuracy across various SD versions, addressing this issue. Our insights highlight the importance of continued efforts to mitigate biases and vulnerabilities in evolving text-to-image models.

Breaking Agents: Compromising Autonomous LLM Agents Through Malfunction Amplification

Recently, autonomous agents built on large language models (LLMs) have experienced significant development and are being deployed in real-world applications. These agents can extend the base LLM's capabilities in multiple ways. For example, a well-built agent using GPT-3.5-Turbo as its core can outperform the more advanced GPT-4 model by leveraging external components. More importantly, the usage of tools enables these systems to perform actions in the real world, moving from merely generating text to actively interacting with their environment. Given the agents' practical applications and their ability to execute consequential actions, it is crucial to assess potential vulnerabilities. Such autonomous systems can cause more severe damage than a standalone language model if compromised. While some existing research has explored harmful actions by LLM agents, our study approaches the vulnerability from a different perspective. We introduce a new type of attack that causes malfunctions by misleading the agent into executing repetitive or irrelevant actions. We conduct comprehensive evaluations using various attack methods, surfaces, and properties to pinpoint areas of susceptibility. Our experiments reveal that these attacks can induce failure rates exceeding 80\% in multiple scenarios. Through attacks on implemented and deployable agents in multi-agent scenarios, we accentuate the realistic risks associated with these vulnerabilities. To mitigate such attacks, we propose self-examination detection methods. However, our findings indicate these attacks are difficult to detect effectively using LLMs alone, highlighting the substantial risks associated with this vulnerability.