Did the LLM Answer the Question? A Semantic Reconstruction Game for Jailbreak Evaluation

"Oh-Oh, yes, I'm the great pretender. Pretending that I'm doing well. My need is such, I pretend too much..." summarizes the state in the area of jailbreak creation and evaluation. You find this method to generate adversarial attacks proposed by a reputable institution (e.g., BoN from Anthropic or Crescendo from Microsoft Research). However, this method does not deliver on the promise claimed in the paper despite having top ASR scores against industry-grade LLMs. You successfully generate the jailbreak prompts against your target (open) model. However, the generated jailbreak prompt works against the target model with a 50% consecutive success rate (5 out of 10 attempts) despite having an 80% ASR (on paper) on the latest closed-source model (with a guardrail system)! This observation leads us to think. First, Attack Success Rate (ASR), the primary metric for LLM jailbreak benchmarking, is not a stable quantity. Second, published ASR numbers are therefore systematically inflated and incomparable across papers. Therefore, we wonder "Why a successful jailbreak prompt does not perform consistently well against a target model on which the prompts have been optimized?". To answer this question, we study the impact of stochasticity not only during attack evaluation but also during attack generation. Our evaluation includes several jailbreak attacks, models (different sizes and providers), and judges. In addition, we propose a new metric and two new frameworks (CAS-eval and CAS-gen). Our evaluation framework, CAS-eval, shows that an attack can have an ASR drop of up to 30 percentage points when a jailbreak prompt needs to succeed on more than one attempt. Thankfully, our attack generation framework (CAS-gen) improves previous jailbreak methods and helps them recover this loss of 30 percentage points!

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 robustness has become central to large language model (LLM) safety evaluation, yet prevailing methodologies rely primarily on refusal behavior, semantic resemblance, and intent-matching heuristics that emphasize linguistic plausibility rather than correctness. We identify a key limitation in existing evaluations: many jailbreak intents depend on instructional validity rather than epistemic factuality, allowing realistic-looking responses to be labeled successful despite being factually or procedurally incorrect. To address this gap, we propose Sequential Epistemic and Action-Level Validation (SEAV), a verification-centric jailbreak evaluation framework that decomposes responses into ordered steps and evaluates both validity and correctness. SEAV combines LLM-as-a-judge mechanisms for semantic interpretation with retrieval-grounded verification using external knowledge sources, assessing whether generated content is factually correct, structurally consistent, and operationally capable of advancing harmful objectives. Empirically, SEAV cuts the false-positive rate on SD-A (a curated strategic-dishonesty diagnostic) by 14.9,pp vs. the strongest baseline, and reclassifies 22.1%--51.0% of sampled prior-labeled successes as invalid across three of four public benchmarks. Together, these results show that enforcing correctness substantially reshapes measured robustness: many previously labeled jailbreak successes are reclassified as invalid, and results are stable across the tested search backends and evaluator models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Ardor-Wu/SEAV.