Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Jailbreak Success Rate In CS.AI Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: DROP. 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 26, 2026.

Papers: 13 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 13 papers for Jailbreak Success Rate In CS.AI Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on DROP, Retrieval and metric focus on jailbreak success rate, success rate. 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

  • DROP appears in 7.7% of hub papers (1/13); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Retrieval appears in 7.7% of hub papers (1/13); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • jailbreak success rate is reported in 100% of hub papers (13/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • success rate is reported in 46.2% of hub papers (6/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Tighten coverage on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is usable but incomplete (30.8% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (15.4% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is usable but incomplete (30.8% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

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

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (15.4% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Make It Hard to Hear, Easy to Learn: Long-Form Bengali ASR and Speaker Diarization via Extreme Augmentation and Perfect Alignment

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

  2. 2. Efficient Dialect-Aware Modeling and Conditioning for Low-Resource Taiwanese Hakka Speech Processing

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

  3. 3. TG-ASR: Translation-Guided Learning with Parallel Gated Cross Attention for Low-Resource Automatic Speech Recognition

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

  4. 4. Mitigating Structural Noise in Low-Resource S2TT: An Optimized Cascaded Nepali-English Pipeline with Punctuation Restoration

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Adversarial Intent is a Latent Variable: Stateful Trust Inference for Securing Multimodal Agentic RAG

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Training-Free Intelligibility-Guided Observation Addition for Noisy ASR

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. AdapTools: Adaptive Tool-based Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic LLMs

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

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

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=10, right_only=3

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

DROP

Coverage: 1 papers (7.7%)

1 papers (7.7%) mention DROP.

Examples: Mitigating Structural Noise in Low-Resource S2TT: An Optimized Cascaded Nepali-English Pipeline with Punctuation Restoration

Benchmark Brief

Retrieval

Coverage: 1 papers (7.7%)

1 papers (7.7%) mention Retrieval.

Examples: Adversarial Intent is a Latent Variable: Stateful Trust Inference for Securing Multimodal Agentic RAG

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs