Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Red Team Or Rubric Rating Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 37 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported. 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 Feb 25, 2026.

Papers: 37 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Red TeamRubric Rating

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 37 papers for Red Team Or Rubric Rating Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, human evaluation, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on AdvBench, Caparena and metric focus on jailbreak success rate, accuracy. Use the grounded sections below to prioritize reproducible protocol choices, benchmark-matched comparisons, and judge-vs-human evaluation checks.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • AdvBench appears in 2.7% of hub papers (1/37); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Caparena appears in 2.7% of hub papers (1/37); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • jailbreak success rate is reported in 13.5% of hub papers (5/37); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 10.8% of hub papers (4/37); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Maintain strength on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (8.1% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (18.9% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (43.2% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.6% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is strong (45.9% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (8.1% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (18.9% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (43.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is strong (45.9% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Cross-Cultural Expert-Level Art Critique Evaluation with Vision-Language Models

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  2. 2. RuCL: Stratified Rubric-Based Curriculum Learning for Multimodal Large Language Model Reasoning

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  3. 3. Alignment-Weighted DPO: A principled reasoning approach to improve safety alignment

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

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

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  5. 5. Discovering Implicit Large Language Model Alignment Objectives

    Include a human-eval paper to anchor calibration against automated judge settings.

  6. 6. Multi-Agent Comedy Club: Investigating Community Discussion Effects on LLM Humor Generation

    Include a human-eval paper to anchor calibration against automated judge settings.

  7. 7. SibylSense: Adaptive Rubric Learning via Memory Tuning and Adversarial Probing

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Assessing Risks of Large Language Models in Mental Health Support: A Framework for Automated Clinical AI Red Teaming

    Adds simulation environments with red-team protocols for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 8.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (21.6% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs llm_as_judge

both=2, left_only=3, right_only=0

2 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=5, right_only=29

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=2, right_only=29

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Benchmark Brief

AdvBench

Coverage: 1 papers (2.7%)

1 papers (2.7%) mention AdvBench.

Examples: A Simple and Efficient Jailbreak Method Exploiting LLMs' Helpfulness

Benchmark Brief

Caparena

Coverage: 1 papers (2.7%)

1 papers (2.7%) mention Caparena.

Examples: PoSh: Using Scene Graphs To Guide LLMs-as-a-Judge For Detailed Image Descriptions

Benchmark Brief

Jailbreakbench

Coverage: 1 papers (2.7%)

1 papers (2.7%) mention Jailbreakbench.

Examples: Refusal Steering: Fine-grained Control over LLM Refusal Behaviour for Sensitive Topics

Metric Brief

jailbreak success rate

Coverage: 5 papers (13.5%)

5 papers (13.5%) mention jailbreak success rate.

Examples: MANATEE: Inference-Time Lightweight Diffusion Based Safety Defense for LLMs , What Matters For Safety Alignment? , Reasoning Up the Instruction Ladder for Controllable Language Models

Top Papers

Related Hubs