Security Assessment of DeepSeek and GPT Series Models against Jailbreak Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) has heightened concerns regarding their exposure to jailbreak attacks, which craft adversarial inputs designed to elicit unsafe content. Although proprietary models such as GPT-4 have been extensively evaluated, the robustness of emerging open-source systems like DeepSeek remains insufficiently examined, despite their growing use in LLM applications. In this paper, we conduct the first comprehensive jailbreak analysis of the DeepSeek model family, comparing it with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 through the HarmBench benchmark. We investigate seven representative attack methods across 510 harmful behaviors, organized along both functional and semantic dimensions. Findings indicate that DeepSeek provides partial resilience against optimization-driven attacks such as TAP-T, but also results in greater susceptibility to prompt-based and manually engineered adversarial inputs. In contrast, GPT-4 Turbo demonstrates more robust and consistent safety alignment across a wide range of behaviors, likely due to stronger safety optimization and reinforcement learning from human feedback. In addition, fine-grained behavioral analysis and case studies reveal that DeepSeek often fails to consistently apply safety constraints to adversarial prompts, leading to uneven refusal behaviors. Overall, our results highlight an inherent trade-off between model efficiency and alignment generalization, underscoring the importance of targeted safety tuning and robust alignment strategies to ensure secure deployment of open-source LLMs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".