Bits Leaked per Query: Information-Theoretic Bounds for Adversarial Attacks on LLMs
Masahiro Kaneko, Timothy Baldwin
Abstract
Adversarial attacks by malicious users that threaten the safety of large language models (LLMs) can be viewed as attempts to infer a target property T that is unknown when an instruction is issued, and becomes knowable only after the model's reply is observed. Examples of target properties T include the binary flag that triggers an LLM's harmful response or rejection, and the degree to which information deleted by unlearning can be restored, both elicited via adversarial instructions. The LLM reveals an observable signal Z that potentially leaks hints for attacking through a response containing answer tokens, thinking process tokens, or logits. Yet the scale of information leaked remains anecdotal, leaving auditors without principled guidance and defenders blind to the transparency-risk trade-off. We fill this gap with an information-theoretic framework that computes how much information can be safely disclosed, and enables auditors to gauge how close their methods come to the fundamental limit. Treating the mutual information I(Z; T ) between the observation Z and the target property T as the leaked bits per query, we show that achieving error ε requires at least log(1/ε)/I(Z; T ) queries, scaling linearly with the inverse leak rate and only logarithmically with the desired accuracy. Thus, even a modest increase in disclosure collapses the attack cost from quadratic to logarithmic in terms of the desired accuracy. Experiments on seven LLMs across system-prompt leakage, jailbreak, and relearning attacks corroborate the theory: exposing answer tokens alone requires about a thousand queries; adding logits cuts this to about a hundred; and revealing the full thinking process trims it to a few dozen. Our results provide the first principled yardstick for balancing transparency and security when deploying LLMs.
Recent work has introduced a variety of adaptive attacks, from gradient-guided prompt search and CoT-based editing to self-play strategies [56,48,51]. However, evaluation remains overwhelmingly
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on15
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes et al.ICLR 2020 · 4,112 citations
- WildTeaming at Scale: From In-the-Wild Jailbreaks to (Adversarially) Safer Language ModelsLiwei Jiang, Kavel Rao, Seungju Han, Allyson Ettinger et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 247 citations
Related papers
- Resolving the Security-Auditability Dilemma with Auditable Latent Chain-of-Thought AlignmentGuan Wang, Biyu Zhou, Xuehai Tang, Jizhong Han et al.ACL 2026
- Breach By A Thousand Leaks: Unsafe Information Leakage in 'Safe' AI ResponsesDavid Glukhov, Ziwen Han, Ilia Shumailov, Vardan Papyan et al.ICLR 2025
- Protecting Your LLMs with Information BottleneckZichuan Liu, Zefan Wang, Linjie Xu, Jinyu Wang et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 43 citations
- Adversarial Reasoning at Jailbreaking TimeMahdi Sabbaghi, Paul Kassianik, George J. Pappas, Amin Karbasi et al.ICML 2025
- Making Them Ask and Answer: Jailbreaking Large Language Models in Few Queries via Disguise and ReconstructionTong Liu, Yingjie Zhang, Zhe Zhao, Yinpeng Dong et al.USENIX Security 2024 · 121 citations
