Measuring the Wrong Thing: Internal Harmfulness Scores Anti-Rank Successful Jailbreaks
Authors: Mingyu Luo, Ming Deng, Zilang Qiu, Yiming Cheng, Ci Tao, Xue Tan, Sijin Sun, Yangfu Li, +3 more
Organizations: College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University · School of Computer Engineering and Science, Shanghai University · Beijing Normal University · Tsinghua University · Institute of Advanced Intelligence and Computing, A*STAR · School of Communication and Electronic Engineering, East China Normal University · Institute of Big Data, Fudan University · Department of Computer Science, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Internal safety scores judge a prompt before any text is generated, and they are validated by how well they separate harmful prompts from benign ones. That separation is then read as evidence that the score will also catch the attacks that succeed. Harmful intent is a property of the prompt. Jailbreak success is an outcome produced later by a particular target model, decoding policy, and judge. A filter tuned on a score that measures the wrong quantity spends its false positive budget on attacks that would have failed anyway. In this paper we audit that inference. Attention based measurements are usually read from prompt dependent locations, so a wrapper changes both the content being judged and the place the signal is taken from. We therefore introduce Active Attention Probing, which supplies a fixed content independent measurement coordinate. We pair every base goal with a plain and a wrapped version and generate real completions from the target models. On Llama, wrapping raises harmful generation from 0.05 to 0.27 while harmful intent AUROC falls from 0.936 to 0.803, so the attacks grow more dangerous while the prompts look safer to the score. Among wrapped harmful prompts the outcome AUROC is 0.220, which places the attacks that succeeded below the attacks that failed. Rare token, passive, and detector derived channels reproduce the reversal on the same matched design, and the reversal itself persists across three target models, seven attack families, and two independent judges. Distribution shift then degrades calibration and threshold transfer before it degrades ranking.
Almost every paper on LLM jailbreaks and prompt injection reports an attack-success rate (ASR), and that number is assigned not by people but by an automated judge: either a safety classifier trained for the task, or a general chat model prompted to grade. The judge is rarely checked. We check it. Using 596 human-labeled completions from the HarmBench classifier validation set, we compare the two judge families against human majority votes and then attack them. The two families fail in opposite ways. The dedicated classifier over-flags (precision 0.835, recall 0.974); three different LLM-as-judges keep high precision (0.81 to 0.94) but show erratic recall (0.06 to 0.65), so the same responses produce very different ASR depending on which judge scores them. The two families also differ sharply in robustness. Wrappers that leave the harmful text untouched and only add benign framing flip every LLM-judge between 57% and 100% of the time, and a single prepended refusal sentence accounts for much of this (39% to 88%). The dedicated classifier resists these surface attacks (at most 6.7%), but a white-box GCG attack on its open weights flips 70% of confident true positives (21 of 30; 95% CI 54 to 86%) even at a small optimization budget. A two-annotator audit confirms the attacks leave the harm intact: every one of 80 sampled flips still contained the harmful content. Because a large and growing share of reported ASR comes from LLM-judges, many such numbers are unreliable both on average and under deliberate pressure. We recommend that papers report judge precision and recall on a human-labeled slice, report ASR corrected for judge precision, and include an adversarial check of the judge. Our code is released.
Jailbreak attacks -- adversarial prompts that bypass LLM alignment through purely linguistic manipulation -- pose a growing operational security threat, yet the field lacks large-scale, reproducible infrastructure for generating, categorizing, and evaluating them systematically. This paper addresses that gap with three contributions. (1) Large-scale compositional jailbreak dataset. We construct 114,000 adversarial prompts by applying 912 composing strategies to 125 harmful seed prompts from JailBreakV-28K. Every prompt is assigned to one of 14 cybersecurity attack categories (e.g., malware, phishing, privilege escalation) via a six-model majority-vote pipeline, and each strategy is ranked by effectiveness per category, enabling principled strategy selection grounded in concrete adversarial objectives. (2) Automated jailbreak generation. We instruction-fine-tune category-aware LLMs on Moderate and Optimal subsets, producing models that synthesize fluent jailbreak prompts from a harmful seed at inference time -- no templates, no gradient search. Our generators achieve perplexity 24-39 versus 40-140 for AutoDAN and AmpleGCG, with safety-filter evasion rates of 0.29-0.51 Mal (LlamaPromptGuard-2-86M), enabling controllable, scalable red-teaming under realistic adversarial conditions. (3) OPTIMUS: a training-free jailbreak evaluator. OPTIMUS is a continuous metric J(S,H) that jointly captures semantic similarity between the harmful seed and the jailbreak (S) and harmfulness probability (H) via calibrated penalty functions. Unlike binary attack success rate (ASR), OPTIMUS requires no task-specific training, generalizes across evolving strategies, and exposes a stealth-optimal regime (S*=0.57, H*=0.43) that ASR misses. Experiments across 114,000 prompts confirm that OPTIMUS separates Weak, Moderate, and Optimal jailbreaks with category-level evidence binary evaluation cannot supply.
Jailbreak attacks on large language models are usually evaluated by attacker-centric metrics such as attack success rate (ASR), yet an attack that breaks a model is not necessarily useful for improving its safety. We propose a defender-centric view of jailbreak evaluation, where attacks are evaluated by the downstream safety improvements they enable when used as red-teaming data for safety training. Building on this view, we introduce A-MESS (Minimal Effective Attack-Subset Selection), a setting-agnostic framework for attributing and selecting jailbreak attacks from black-box subset utility observations. A-MESS estimates AttackSHAP, a Shapley-based score that attributes marginal utility to individual attacks and selects compact attack subsets under user-specified budgets via greedy or surrogate-based optimization. Across controlled utility landscapes and real LLM safety settings, we find that ASR rankings are weakly aligned with defender-centric utility, that AttackSHAP can be estimated accurately with limited utility queries, and that directly optimizing subsets yields stronger safety utility than attacker-centric or attribution-only selection. These results suggest evaluating jailbreak attacks as resources for improving safety, not only as tools for breaking models.