Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Beyond Attack Success Rate: Cost-Aware Metric for Evaluating Iterative LLM Jailbreaks

Rohan Menon, Chih-Hong ChengPublished Oct 19, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.

Attack success rate (ASR) evaluates jailbreaks against large language models without accounting for repeated calls to the victim model. Yet each additional call gives the deployed system another opportunity to detect the attack and intervene. We introduce $\mathrm{ASR}_{\mathrm{STEP}}$, which penalizes additional victim-model calls while retaining binary success judgments. Our evaluation considers GCG, PAIR with a step budget, and a single-step PAP baseline on JailBreakBench across three model families. GCG's scores decrease by 7.0-8.7 percentage points after discounting, while PAP's remain unchanged. While for PAIR attack, we see a wider discounting range between 3.4-12 percentage points, showing that the "step" quantity differs per iterative strategy. Reporting both metrics makes the discount due to repeated victim-model interaction explicit. Code is available here: https://github.com/SuELS-Group/beyond_asr.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: hot
Attack success rate (ASR) evaluates jailbreaks against large language models without accounting for repeated calls to the victim model.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Compare implementation paths

Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.

Maintenance
Active
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Moderate
Stars
0
Last push
Oct 20, 2026 (3d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup
Maintenance
Active
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Moderate
Stars
0
Last push
Oct 12, 2026 (11d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup
  • Low confidence match

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 23, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Repositories and ecosystem

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

None detected

Methods

Transformer

Domains

Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.