Updated 1 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026
paper_01M294FPN1MH5V7TGKD8Y42WMS
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
- T1 · 1 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.10594
- T1 · 1 h ago
- Category
- cs.CR
- T1 · 1 h ago
Abstract
Expert evaluation of jailbreak responses is costly and difficult to scale, so the community increasingly relies on automated evaluators to determine whether an attack succeeds. However, jailbreak studies typically validate their chosen evaluator independently, repeatedly spending resources on similar evaluation efforts while making results across papers difficult to compare. Different evaluators also encode different definitions of jailbreak success, meaning that reported attack strength and apparent progress can depend substantially on which evaluator is used. We systematically compare six evaluators that recur in recent jailbreak attack and defense research: HarmBench, JailbreakBench, JailbreakRadar, StrongReject, JADES, and JailMeter. To our knowledge, no prior study has evaluated all six on the same human-labeled data under a controlled setup. We evaluate them on JailbreakQR and JailMeter-Eva, using human judgments as the reference, and measure agreement with humans, error types, and consistency across attack families. For evaluators that require a general-purpose LLM judge, we use a shared backbone to control for model-specific variation. We found that JADES exhibits the best overall performance, while HarmBench and StrongReject also demonstrate good performance.
Authors 1
Yujie Mu
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- cross
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.10594
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.CR, cs.LG
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.CR
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
1 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
- Authors
- Yujie Mu
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Abstract
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expert evaluation of jailbreak responses is costly and difficult to scale, so the community increasingly relies on automated evaluators to determine whether an attack succeeds. However, jailbreak studies typically validate their chosen evaluator independently, repeatedly spending resources on similar evaluation efforts while making results across papers difficult to compare. Different evaluators also encode different definitions of jailbreak success, meaning that reported attack strength and apparent progress can depend substantially on which evaluator is used. We systematically compare six evaluators that recur in recent jailbreak attack and defense research: HarmBench, JailbreakBench, JailbreakRadar, StrongReject, JADES, and JailMeter. To our knowledge, no prior study has evaluated all six on the same human-labeled data under a controlled setup. We evaluate them on JailbreakQR and JailMeter-Eva, using human judgments as the reference, and measure agreement with humans, error types, and consistency across attack families. For evaluators that require a general-purpose LLM judge, we use a shared backbone to control for model-specific variation. We found that JADES exhibits the best overall performance, while HarmBench and StrongReject also demonstrate good performance. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
New paper: An Empirical Measurement of Jailbreaking Evaluators
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.LG | feed | T1· Official | 1 h ago | 1 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.