Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.CR + Automatic Metrics Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 18 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 18 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: AdvBench. Common metric signal: jailbreak success rate. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Jan 7, 2026.

Papers: 18 Last published: Jan 7, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Cs.CRAutomatic Metrics

Researcher Quick Triage

This hub is best used for protocol triage and replication planning from abstract-level evidence. Quality band: Developing .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

18 / 18 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

4

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 4 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 0 papers report explicit quality controls (calibration/adjudication/IAA).

Primary action: Start with the top 2 papers in “Start Here”, then validate assumptions in the protocol matrix.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 75% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by red-team protocols.
  • automatic metrics appears in 44.4% of papers in this hub.
  • AdvBench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (AdvBench vs APPS) before comparing methods.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • AdvBench appears in 12.5% of hub papers (1/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • APPS appears in 12.5% of hub papers (1/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • jailbreak success rate is reported in 37.5% of hub papers (3/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • success rate is reported in 25% of hub papers (2/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (75% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (75% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (75% of papers).
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 37.5% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (12.5% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (12.5% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (AdvBench vs APPS) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both jailbreak success rate and success rate.
Recommended Queries (Expanded)

Recommended Queries

Start with These 3

Use these when you need one protocol anchor, one benchmark anchor, and one recent comparison point before reading the wider hub.

Start Here (Best First 6)

Ranked for protocol completeness (human signal, benchmark + metric anchors, quality controls, and judge/human overlap).

Protocol Matrix (Top 12)

Use this to quickly compare protocol ingredients instead of scanning long prose.

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

Fast side-by-side comparison for the highest-ranked papers in this hub.

Signal A Simple and Efficient Jailbreak Method Exploiting… Obscure but Effective: Classical Chinese Jailbreak… MANATEE: Inference-Time Lightweight Diffusion Based…
Human Feedback Red TeamRed TeamRed Team
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks AdvBenchNot reportedNot reported
Metrics HelpfulnessAccuracy, ConcisenessSuccess rate, Jailbreak success rate
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit UnknownUnknownUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

This section is intentionally expanded only when needed; use “Start Here” above for a faster pass.

Suggested Reading Order

  1. RLShield: Practical Multi-Agent RL for Financial Cyber Defense with Attack-Surface MDPs and Real-Time Response Orchestration

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: APPS / cost. Abstract: Financial systems run nonstop and must stay reliable even during cyber.

  2. Obscure but Effective: Classical Chinese Jailbreak Prompt Optimization via Bio-Inspired Search

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + red-team protocols. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used, their security.

  3. "Are You Sure?": An Empirical Study of Human Perception Vulnerability in LLM-Driven Agentic Systems

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are rapidly becoming trusted copilots in high-stakes.

  4. What Matters For Safety Alignment?

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + red-team protocols. Focus: success rate. Abstract: This paper presents a comprehensive empirical study on.

  5. A Simple and Efficient Jailbreak Method Exploiting LLMs' Helpfulness

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + red-team protocols. Focus: AdvBench / helpfulness. Abstract: This study reveals a critical safety blind.

  6. MANATEE: Inference-Time Lightweight Diffusion Based Safety Defense for LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics with red-team protocols for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + red-team protocols. Focus: success rate. Abstract: Defending LLMs against adversarial jailbreak.

  7. A Systematic Review of Algorithmic Red Teaming Methodologies for Assurance and Security of AI Applications

    Adds automatic metrics with red-team protocols for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + red-team protocols. Abstract: Cybersecurity threats are becoming increasingly sophisticated, making traditional.

  8. ICON: Indirect Prompt Injection Defense for Agents based on Inference-Time Correction

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) agents are susceptible to Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) attacks, where.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (12.5% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Research Utility Snapshot

Human Feedback Mix

  • Red Team (5)
  • Expert Verification (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (8)

Top Benchmarks

  • AdvBench (1)
  • APPS (1)

Top Metrics

  • Jailbreak success rate (3)
  • Success rate (2)
  • Accuracy (1)
  • Conciseness (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (1)

Quality Controls

Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 33.3% · benchmarks 22.2% · metrics 83.3% · quality controls 0.0%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.