Almost every paper on LLM jailbreaks and prompt injection reports an attack-success rate (ASR), and that number is assigned not by people but by an automated judge: either a safety classifier trained for the task, or a general chat model prompted to grade. The judge is rarely checked.
arXiv:2605. 03226v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Safety fine-tuning of language models typically requires a curated adversarial dataset.
By Prakhar Gupta, Garv Shah, Donghua Zhang
arXiv:2606. 02959v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Published evaluations of prompt-injection and jailbreak detectors for Large Language Models often suffer from two systematic weaknesses: per-dataset threshold tuning and undisclosed operating points.
By Ryle Goehausen, Marcus Sousa
arXiv:2608. 09624v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Internal safety scores judge a prompt before any text is generated, and they are validated by how well they separate harmful prompts from benign ones.
By Mingyu Luo, Ming Deng, Zilang Qiu, Yiming Cheng, Ci Tao, Xue Tan, Sijin Sun, Yangfu Li, Ping Chen, Jun Dai, Xiaoyan Sun
arXiv:2608. 12645v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judges have become central infrastructure for model evaluations, online grading, and reward modeling.
By Justin Zhao, Himaghna Bhattacharjee, Hannah Korevaar, Bhaktipriya Radharapu, Khalid El-Arini
arXiv:2607. 12792v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Jailbreak-robustness research typically evaluates safety through generated responses using an LLM-as-judge approach.
By Roman Prosvirnin, Victor Minchenkov, Alexey Soldatov, Vladimir Bashun
arXiv:2606. 10315v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-judge is the default instrument for evaluating conversational agents, yet its reliability is almost always reported as agreement with human ratings, not recall of real defects.
By Sawyer Zhang, Alexander Wang, Sophie Lei
arXiv:2606. 16242v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The Rapid Response (RR) framework, deployed in production systems, including Anthropic's ASL-3 safeguards, continuously improves jailbreak-detection classifiers.
By David Huang, Jaewon Chang, Avidan Shah, Prateek Mittal, Chawin Sitawarin
arXiv:2604. 23341v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) as assistants in electric grid operations promises to streamline compliance and decision-making but exposes new vulnerabilities to prompt-based adversarial attacks.
By Taha Hammadia, Lucas Rea, Ahmad Mohammad Saber, Amr Youssef, Deepa Kundur
arXiv:2606. 02640v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-turn jailbreak attacks pose a growing threat to large language model (LLM) safety because they exploit feedback from auxiliary judge models to iteratively refine prompts toward harmful goals.
By Huanli Gong, Zhipeng Wei, Yu Fu, Haz Sameen Shahgir, Ananya Gupta, Yue Dong, N. Benjamin Erichson
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
By Bhaskar Gurram
arXiv:2607. 19424v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The assessment of jailbreak attacks against large language models currently suffers from inconsistent evaluation criteria and methods, leading to unreliable estimates of attack success rates.
By Qingjia Huang, Jingyu Zhang, Jianguo Wu, Yakai Li, Weijuan Zhang, Yankai Rong, Junyi Yao, Shengzhi Zhang, Xiaoqi Jia