Beyond Attack Success Rate: Cost-Aware Metric for Evaluating Iterative LLM Jailbreaks
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
Attack success rate (ASR) evaluates jailbreaks against large language models without accounting for repeated calls to the victim model.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
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.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- 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
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.
Validation caveat
Repositories and ecosystem
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- SuELS-Group/beyond_asr
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
- eerstar/LLM-Agent-paper-daily
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
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.
Datasets
Spaces
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
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.