The paper introduces ADVERSA, an automated red‑teaming framework that evaluates large language model safety over multiple turns by tracking continuous compliance trajectories instead of binary jailbreak outcomes. Using a fine‑tuned 70B attacker model and a structured 5‑point rubric, the authors conduct controlled experiments on three frontier victim models, measuring guardrail degradation and judge reliability through a triple‑judge consensus. Results show a 26.7% jailbreak rate with most breaches occurring early, and the study documents inter‑judge agreement, attacker drift, and attacker refusals as key factors affecting safety assessment.
By Harry Owiredu-Ashley
arXiv:2607. 01153v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Safety evaluations for language models increasingly depend on judgments about ambiguous natural-language behaviour: whether a model followed an instruction, refused appropriately, complied with a policy, or misreported progress in an agentic task.
By Brett Reynolds
arXiv:2605. 08876v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents that execute tool-augmented, multi-step tasks, where latency is a critical factor for real-world applications.
By Xinyu Li, Ronghui Mu, Lin Li, Tianjin Huang, Gaojie Jin
arXiv:2608. 10669v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents combine language-based reasoning with external tools to perform complex tasks.
By Zixing Chen, Xingyuan Liu, Jie Zhu, Huaixia Dou, Shuo Jiang, Junhui Li, Lifan Guo, Feng Chen, Chi Zhang
The paper introduces the SAST-IR framework to evaluate large language models’ robustness against persuasion attacks in a memory‑less setting, revealing a flaw called "Refusal Inertia" that masks true vulnerability. Using the CP‑Agent and a custom CounterFact‑Strict dataset, the authors demonstrate that simple, diverse attack strategies achieve a 96% success rate, while complex attacks often trigger defensive compliance. The study highlights severe brittleness in current state‑of‑the‑art models when deprived of conversation history.
By Zhuoang Cai
arXiv:2608. 08700v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reliable evaluation of tool routing is critical as Large Language Models increasingly operate as autonomous agents.
By Dongjie Xu, Julius, Hanchi Dong, Minghua Tang, Yuxuan Sun, Ziwei Nie, Zicheng Liu, Dujun Qing, Jiajie Xu
arXiv:2606. 09878v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Standard benchmarks report aggregate accuracy, but practitioners need to know which specific capabilities a model lacks.
By Nicholas Saban
arXiv:2603. 03824v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Humans often become more self-aware under threat, yet can lose self-awareness when absorbed in a task; we hypothesize that language models exhibit environment-dependent \textit{evaluation awareness}.
By Maheep Chaudhary
arXiv:2609.36570v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Indirect prompt injection makes an LLM agent treat untrusted retrieved text as instructions. We present CounterSteer, an inference-time defense that...
By Mark Russinovich
arXiv:2506. 07121v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Ensuring the safety and robustness of large language models (LLMs) is a fundamental challenge and a critical prerequisite for the responsible deployment of artificial intelligence.
By Ren-Jian Wang, Ke Xue, Zeyu Qin, Ziniu Li, Sheng Tang, Hao-Tian Li, Shengcai Liu, Zhi Yu, Yuanpeng Tan, Chao Qian
CART (Closed‑Loop Adaptive Red Teaming) is a framework that iteratively uses results from red‑teaming tests to guide subsequent probes, thereby expanding risk coverage and maintaining diversity. It separates the roles of Challenger (test generator), Target (model or agent under test), and Judge (result evaluator), enabling independent study of each component. Across multiple evaluation families, CART uncovers more failures and higher risk than static prompt replay, demonstrating that adaptive, continuous testing reveals weaknesses that fixed‑prompt methods miss.
By Dongdong Zhang, Tengchao Lv, Yilin Jia, Yuzhong Zhao, Yupan Huang, Wenshan Wu, Xiangyang Zhou, Shaohan Huang, Nan Yang, Li Dong, Lei Cui, Furu Wei
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