Skip to content
← Back to explorer

MUSE: A Run-Centric Platform for Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models

Zhongxi Wang, Yueqian Lin, Jingyang Zhang, Hai Helen Li, Yiran Chen · Mar 3, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Safety evaluation and red-teaming of large language models remain predominantly text-centric, and existing frameworks lack the infrastructure to systematically test whether alignment generalizes to audio, image, and video inputs. We present MUSE (Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation), an open-source, run-centric platform that integrates automatic cross-modal payload generation, three multi-turn attack algorithms (Crescendo, PAIR, Violent Durian), provider-agnostic model routing, and an LLM judge with a five-level safety taxonomy into a single browser-based system. A dual-metric framework distinguishes hard Attack Success Rate (Compliance only) from soft ASR (including Partial Compliance), capturing partial information leakage that binary metrics miss. To probe whether alignment generalizes across modality boundaries, we introduce Inter-Turn Modality Switching (ITMS), which augments multi-turn attacks with per-turn modality rotation. Experiments across six multimodal LLMs from four providers show that multi-turn strategies can achieve up to 90-100% ASR against models with near-perfect single-turn refusal. ITMS does not uniformly raise final ASR on already-saturated baselines, but accelerates convergence by destabilizing early-turn defenses, and ablation reveals that the direction of modality effects is model-family-specific rather than universal, underscoring the need for provider-aware cross-modal safety testing.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

65/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 70%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Red Team

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Safety evaluation and red-teaming of large language models remain predominantly text-centric, and existing frameworks lack the infrastructure to systematically test whether alignment generalizes to audio, image, and video inputs."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Safety evaluation and red-teaming of large language models remain predominantly text-centric, and existing frameworks lack the infrastructure to systematically test whether alignment generalizes to audio, image, and video inputs."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Safety evaluation and red-teaming of large language models remain predominantly text-centric, and existing frameworks lack the infrastructure to systematically test whether alignment generalizes to audio, image, and video inputs."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Safety evaluation and red-teaming of large language models remain predominantly text-centric, and existing frameworks lack the infrastructure to systematically test whether alignment generalizes to audio, image, and video inputs."

Reported Metrics

strong

Success rate, Jailbreak success rate

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"A dual-metric framework distinguishes hard Attack Success Rate (Compliance only) from soft ASR (including Partial Compliance), capturing partial information leakage that binary metrics miss."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Red Team
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Web Browsing
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

success ratejailbreak success rate

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Safety evaluation and red-teaming of large language models remain predominantly text-centric, and existing frameworks lack the infrastructure to systematically test whether alignment generalizes to audio, image, and video inputs.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Safety evaluation and red-teaming of large language models remain predominantly text-centric, and existing frameworks lack the infrastructure to systematically test whether alignment generalizes to audio, image, and video inputs.
  • We present MUSE (Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation), an open-source, run-centric platform that integrates automatic cross-modal payload generation, three multi-turn attack algorithms (Crescendo, PAIR, Violent Durian), provider-agnostic model routing, and an LLM judge with a five-level safety taxonomy into a single browser-based system.
  • A dual-metric framework distinguishes hard Attack Success Rate (Compliance only) from soft ASR (including Partial Compliance), capturing partial information leakage that binary metrics miss.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Safety evaluation and red-teaming of large language models remain predominantly text-centric, and existing frameworks lack the infrastructure to systematically test whether alignment generalizes to audio, image, and video inputs.
  • We present MUSE (Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation), an open-source, run-centric platform that integrates automatic cross-modal payload generation, three multi-turn attack algorithms (Crescendo, PAIR, Violent Durian), provider-agnostic…
  • To probe whether alignment generalizes across modality boundaries, we introduce Inter-Turn Modality Switching (ITMS), which augments multi-turn attacks with per-turn modality rotation.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Safety evaluation and red-teaming of large language models remain predominantly text-centric, and existing frameworks lack the infrastructure to systematically test whether alignment generalizes to audio, image, and video inputs.
  • We present MUSE (Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation), an open-source, run-centric platform that integrates automatic cross-modal payload generation, three multi-turn attack algorithms (Crescendo, PAIR, Violent Durian), provider-agnostic…

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Red Team

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: success rate, jailbreak success rate

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.