arXiv preprint ·
PatchBench: Measuring Collateral Damage in Activation Patching
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
An LLM safety patch can pass a benchmark while still being a poor repair. This risk is especially acute for jailbreak repairs, where the goal is to correct a specific unsafe behaviour without changing unrelated behaviours. A patch may block exact evaluation prompts yet fail on close harmful variants, or suppress harmful behaviour by over-refusing benign prompts that share its wording or structure. Existing protocols primarily test whether models can be broken, while aggregate metrics (attack success, refusal rates, global capability) cannot distinguish selective repairs from broader local suppression. To address this gap, we introduce PatchBench, a benchmark of empirically observed model-specific jailbreak failures inducing actionable harmful answers. Starting from 27,870 prompts from 37 public datasets, we curate 15,314 English prompts and query 8 open-source instruction-tuned models. Combining WildGuard filtering, pairwise Elo ranking, and manual verification, we retain a curated bank of 400 high-confidence jailbreak failures. We further introduce PatchBench-Local, an evaluation protocol testing whether a patch is behaviourally precise. For each harmful source prompt, PatchBench-Local generates three families of local neighbours: harmful variants preserving malicious intent, benign prompts with matched structure, and benign prompts reusing key harmful terms. It evaluates harmful-neighbour correction and benign-neighbour preservation, distinguishing selective repair from broader local suppression. Evaluating four activation steering methods with PatchBench-Local and MMLU shows that global capability can remain nearly unchanged while local benign regressions are severe, confirming aggregate metrics miss important collateral damage. PatchBench-Local provides a more precise basis for developing and comparing jailbreak repair methods.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Adversarial Images Hijack Web Agents from Visual Grounding to Browser Execution
NOMOS: Compiling Written Policies into Statically Verified Tool-Call Gates for LLM Agents
Package Hallucination Attacks on Coding Agents through Prompt Injection in Rule Files
Language Modeling is Monotone Compression
Ask the Expert: LLM-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Cyber Defense
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.