Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Automation Advantage in AI Red Teaming

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Automated red-teaming attacks beat manual ones 69.5% to 47.6% in a 214,271-attempt LLM CTF dataset.

desk verdict A genuinely useful first dataset on real LLM red-teaming at scale, but the headline automation advantage is confounded by volume, challenge difficulty, and selection effects that the paper itself acknowledges. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19855 v2 pith:CHQQX5KA submitted 2025-04-28 cs.CR

Rob Mulla , Ads Dawson , Vincent Abruzzon , Brian Greunke , Nick Landers , Brad Palm , Will Pearce This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords LLMsecuritypromptinjectionjailbreakingredteamingautomatedattacksCaptureTheFlagempiricalattackanalysissessionclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper analyzes 214,271 attack attempts by 1,674 users on 30 LLM Capture-The-Flag red-teaming challenges and argues that automation is the strongest predictor of success: teams that used any automated probing solved 69.5% of the challenges they attempted, compared with 47.6% for manual-only attempts. The paper treats this as evidence that algorithmic testing is transforming LLM red-teaming, since automated sessions systematically explore the solution space (averaging 472.5 attempts versus 8.0 per manual session) and succeed more often, even though only about 5% of users automated. It also reports a sharp tradeoff: successful manual solves are roughly 5.2 times faster, suggesting human intuition still matters for creative reasoning challenges. These findings would matter for defenders because they point to high-volume automated probing, not just clever prompts, as the main attack surface to defend.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the session classifier, a three-stage pipeline that labels each user-challenge session as automated or manual. Heuristic rules flag sessions with more than 1,000 requests, more than 40 queries in a 60-second window, or very regular timing as automated; a supervised classifier extends those labels using request volume, IP diversity, and timing regularity; LLM judges then review candidate sessions to catch subtler automation. The unit of analysis is the user-challenge pair, where any session containing automation counts as automated, and the counts are 868 automated sessions out of 19,823 total. This pipeline is what turns raw logs into the 69.5% versus 47.6% comparison, so the argument stands or falls with it.

What would settle it

Take the same 30 challenges and run a fresh, instrumented study in which every session records whether the user is automating by direct self-report or a client-side toggle, then recompute the user-challenge solve rates. If the automated advantage falls below, say, 5 percentage points once challenge difficulty is controlled for, or reverses on challenges with high manual solve rates, the paper's central claim would be refuted. The easiest check on existing data: recompute the 69.5% versus 47.6% comparison only for challenges whose manual solve rate is above 50% and see whether the gap survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a reliable empirical gap: at the level of a user attempting a challenge, any involvement of automation raises the solve rate from 47.6% to 69.5%, a 21.8 percentage-point advantage that appears across most of the 30 challenges. Purely automated approaches reached 76.9% and hybrid human-plus-automation approaches 63.1%. The paper explains the gap through thoroughness—automated sessions make hundreds of methodical variations and can persist through hundreds of failures—while manual success is rarer but faster, with a median solve time of 1.5 minutes versus 11.6 minutes for automated solves. The paper is careful to note that this comparison is partly affected by selection: harder challenges attract automation, and users who can solve quickly never bother automating, which may amplify the observed advantage.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the automated/manual labels are accurate enough, and that the 21.8-point gap is not mostly a selection effect in which harder challenges attract automation while quick manual solvers never automate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Defenders should design rate limits and complexity-based throttling specifically to raise the cost of high-volume automated probing, not just to block known prompt patterns.
  • Red-team evaluations should report solve rate and time-to-solve separately, because automation's higher solve rate coexists with a 5.2x slower median solve time.
  • Challenge design can deliberately include elements that disrupt automation, since the data show some creative-reasoning challenges resist automated approaches.
  • Because only about 5% of users automated despite the higher success rate, the untapped attack surface is large; defenders should not assume attacker effort stays manual.
  • Hybrid workflows—human picks the attack direction, automation exhausts the variants—are a measurable best practice for both pure and mixed strategies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 5.2x manual speed advantage suggests a testable prediction: automated agents that can decide to stop or pivot after a few failed creative attempts may match or exceed manual intuition on creative-reasoning challenges—the paper does not test this.
  • The classifier's reliance on timing regularity and request volume implies that an attacker who deliberately paces automation to imitate human rhythm would be classified as manual; an evasion benchmark could be built from exactly these features.
  • Because the dataset comes from an open CTF platform, the population skews toward adversarial hobbyists; generalizing the 69.5% versus 47.6% gap to enterprise or insider threats would require applying the same session-classification method to logs from deployed assistant systems.
  • The paper's challenge-type taxonomy points to a concrete design rule: integration-based challenges, where an LLM touches external tools, may be the next automation frontier, since automated solutions there were up to 2x faster than manual ones.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a 400-day dataset from Dreadnode's Crucible platform (214,271 attack attempts by 1,674 users across 30 LLM challenges) to compare automated versus manual AI red-teaming. The authors report that automated approaches achieve substantially higher user/challenge solve rates than manual approaches (69.5% vs 47.6%), that purely automated approaches do even better (76.9%), that manual approaches are faster when successful (5.2x median solve-time advantage), and that the optimal strategy is hybrid: human creativity for strategy with programmatic execution for exploration. Sessions are classified as automated or manual through a three-stage pipeline (heuristics, a supervised classifier, and LLM judges), and the analysis is presented at session, user/challenge, and challenge levels.

Significance. If the headline comparison is valid, this is a valuable empirical contribution: it is among the largest public observational datasets of real LLM red-teaming behavior, and the paper is transparent about its environment, classification pipeline, and limitations. The concrete attack examples (Section 7) and the challenge-by-challenge tables are useful reference material for both offensive and defensive practitioners. However, the central causal claim that automation itself drives the success-rate advantage is not established: the automation label is partly defined by request volume and rate, automated sessions average 472.5 attempts versus 8.0 for manual, and Section 6.3 explicitly acknowledges that harder challenges attract automation while users who can solve quickly never automate. Because no analysis conditions on attempt volume, challenge difficulty, or user persistence, and no confidence intervals or significance tests are reported, the 21.8 percentage-point gap may reflect persistence and challenge selection rather than a property of automation. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on a substantial reanalysis of the data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1 vs 6.4 and 5.2] The headline comparison (69.5% vs 47.6% success) is computed at the user/challenge level after labeling sessions as automated partly by request volume (>1,000 requests) and request rate (>40 queries per minute) in Section 5.2, and Section 6.4 reports that automated sessions average 472.5 attempts versus 8.0 for manual sessions. A user/challenge pair with hundreds of attempts has a mechanically higher probability of eventually solving the challenge than a pair with a handful of attempts, regardless of whether the attempts are automated. The paper therefore conflates automation with persistence and attempt volume. To support the claim, the authors should control for the number of attempts (for example, by stratifying user/challenge pairs into attempt-count bands, or by fitting a logistic regression with attempt count as a covariate, ideally with user-level clustering). Without such an analysis, the 21.8 percentage-point gap is not attributable to automation per se.
  2. [Section 6.3 and Table 1] Section 6.3 explicitly acknowledges a selection bias: harder challenges attract more automation, and users who can solve a challenge manually in a short time never invest in automation. Despite this, no stratification by challenge difficulty or by user ability is presented. Table 1 shows that the automation advantage is not uniform: for whatistheflag3, squeeze2, and librarian, manual success is equal to or greater than automated success, and the overall pattern is driven by a minority of high-volume challenges. The aggregate 1.46x advantage could therefore be entirely explained by the correlation between automation use and difficult, high-attempt challenges. The authors should report challenge-stratified comparisons (including per-challenge automated/user counts) and, where sample sizes permit, a multilevel model that includes random intercepts for challenges and users.
  3. [Section 6.1 (no uncertainty quantification)] The paper reports the headline success rates, the 5.2x time-to-solve ratio, and the per-challenge comparisons without any confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests. Given the highly skewed user participation (the top user alone accounts for 37,698 of the 214,271 attempts) and the small numbers of automated solves on several challenges (e.g., fragile, miner, extractor2 in Table 1), the aggregate estimates may be sensitive to a handful of users or sessions. The authors should provide cluster-robust confidence intervals (clustering by user and by challenge) or bootstrap intervals, and should indicate the effective sample sizes underlying each claim. This is not a presentation detail; it determines whether the 'significantly higher' claim is supported.
  4. [Section 5.2 and 6.1 (definition of automated at user/challenge level)] In Section 5.2, any user/challenge pair that included an automated session is counted in the 'automated' category for aggregate success-rate analysis, and Section 6.1 reports that purely automated approaches achieve 76.9% while hybrids achieve 63.1%. Aggregating these two groups obscures the mechanism behind the advantage: a pair that used automation for only a small fraction of its sessions may be classified as automated, and the success may come from the manual portion. The classification protocol also has an internal inconsistency: it is described as a 'majority-rule approach' but then defined as labeling a session automated 'if any judge identified automation patterns.' The authors should report the sensitivity of the main result to (i) treating only purely automated pairs as automated, (ii) using different agreement thresholds among the judge LLMs, and (iii) varying the heuristic thresholds (e.g., request count and rate cutoffs). Without such a sensitivity analysis, the reader cannot know how much of the reported advantage is an artifact of the classification choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] There is a citation mismatch: the text in Section 2.1 attributes a three-modality categorization of LLM attacks (jailbreaking, leaking, injection) to 'Zou et al. [5]', but reference [5] is Banerjee et al., 'SoK: A Systems Perspective on Compound AI Threats and Countermeasures'; the cited categorization appears to belong to a different source. Please correct the reference or the attribution.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 reports solve times by challenge, but it does not give the number of automated and manual solves per cell. Several AutoTime entries (e.g., extractor2: 1817.9 hours, whatistheflag4: 0.6 hours, probe2: 0.1 hours) are based on very small samples, and the text acknowledges this for some challenges but not for all outlier cells. Including per-cell counts or annotating cells with n below a threshold would improve interpretability.
  3. [Section 6.1] The sentence 'This 1.46x advantage was consistent across most challenge types' is too strong given Table 1, where manual success is higher or equal on whatistheflag3, squeeze2, and librarian. Please either quantify the proportion of challenges with an automation advantage or soften the claim to reflect the heterogeneity.
  4. [Section 5.2] The sentence describing the 'majority-rule approach' is self-contradictory: it first says the classifications were combined through a majority-rule approach, then states a session was labeled automated if any judge identified automation patterns. Please clarify whether the final label is a union (any judge) or an actual majority vote, and report how many sessions fell into each agreement pattern.
  5. [Figures 4-6] Figures 4, 5, and 6 are referenced in the text but not included in the submitted manuscript extract. Please ensure the final version includes the figures with axis labels, units, and a clear explanation of bubble sizes and color scales in Figure 5; the current text description is not sufficient for quantitative interpretation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The automation advantage is partly built into the automation label: sessions with over 1,000 requests are labeled automated, and the paper then reports high volume and persistence-based success as automation's advantages.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2 (Session Classification Process) and Section 6.4 (Implementation Characteristics)]
    ""Sessions with over 1,000 requests were labeled as automated, while those with 10 or fewer requests were categorized as manual. Additionally, sessions with more than 40 queries within any 60-second window were classified as automated." ... "High Volume: Automated sessions typically involved significantly more attempts (averaging 472.5 attempts per session) compared to manual sessions (8.0).""

    Request volume and timing regularity are inputs to the automation label, yet Section 6.4 presents high volume and consistent timing as empirical discoveries about automated approaches. The 472.5-versus-8.0 attempt comparison is largely a restatement of the >1,000-request labeling rule rather than an independent finding about automation behavior, so the claimed 'systematic exploration' advantage is partly definitional.

  2. other [Sections 5.2, 6.1, and 6.3]
    ""For aggregate success rate analysis purposes, any user/challenge pair that incorporated automation (whether purely automated or hybrid) was counted in the 'automated' category to evaluate the overall impact of automation on success rates." ... "automated approaches achieved significantly higher success rates (69.5%) compared to manual attempts (47.6%)" ... "This indicates that persistence often led to eventual success, despite numerous failed attempts along the way." ... "harder challenges are inherently more likely to show benefits from automation.""

    Because the automated label is partly defined by >1,000-request sessions, and because Section 4 already states that persistence often leads to success, the user/challenge-level comparison folds the persistence effect into the automation effect. The paper also admits that harder challenges attract automation while quick solvers never automate, both inflating the gap; yet no attempt-count, difficulty, or ability controls are reported. The headline 21.8-point advantage is therefore not independent of the labeling rule and the persistence mechanism the paper itself identifies.

full rationale

This is an observational study rather than a derivation, and there is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem; the authors' affiliation with Dreadnode/Crucible does not by itself make the analysis circular. The circularity is localized to the construction of the automation label. Section 5.2 defines automation partly by request count (>1,000) and request-rate bursts (>40 per 60 seconds), then Section 6.4 reports that automated sessions average 472.5 attempts and regular timing, restating the classifier inputs as findings. More importantly, the headline success-rate gap is entangled with the same volume criterion: the paper itself notes (Section 4) that persistence leads to eventual success and (Section 6.3) that harder challenges attract automation while quick solvers never automate, yet Section 6.1 reports 69.5% versus 47.6% with no attempt-count, difficulty, or ability controls. The 21.8-point gap is not purely tautological, since some manual sessions are high-volume and some automated sessions fail, but it partially reduces to the persistence/volume effect encoded in the label. Score 6 reflects this partial, construction-level circularity rather than a fully forced equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen classification thresholds and domain assumptions about the representativeness of the Crucible platform and the reliability of the automated/manual labels. The free parameters are not fit to data but are chosen by hand and materially shape the reported results. The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities.

free parameters (6)
  • session gap threshold = 300 seconds
    Sessions are split when consecutive submissions exceed this gap (Section 5.1); hand-chosen and affects all session counts.
  • automated request-count threshold = >1,000 requests
    Sessions above this volume are labeled automated (Section 5.2); hand-chosen and directly influences the automated/manual balance.
  • manual request-count threshold = <=10 requests
    Sessions at or below this volume are labeled manual (Section 5.2).
  • automated rate threshold = >40 queries per 60-second window
    Used to label sessions as automated (Section 5.2).
  • session duration exclusion = <1 second
    Sessions shorter than this are discarded as artifacts (Section 5.1).
  • time-to-solve definition = first submission to successful submission, including pauses
    Choice of calendar time rather than active time affects the manual speed advantage (Section 5.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Crucible challenge interactions are representative of real-world LLM red-teaming behavior
    The paper generalizes to AI security practice from a CTF platform run by the authors (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption The 300-second session gap and 1-second exclusion define meaningful interaction units
    Section 5.1; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption LLM judges and heuristic features can reliably separate automated from manual sessions
    Only 159 sessions were manually labeled as ground truth; judge disagreements were resolved by union, biasing toward recall (Section 5.2).
  • ad hoc to paper User/challenge pair is the correct unit for success-rate comparison, with any pair using automation counted as automated
    Section 5.2; this choice inflates the automated group with hybrid users and drives the 69.5% figure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Automation Advantage in AI Red Teaming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CHQQX5KA

@misc{pith2026250419855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Automation Advantage in AI Red Teaming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CHQQX5KA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19855}
}
read the original abstract

This paper analyzes Large Language Model (LLM) security vulnerabilities based on data from Crucible, encompassing 214,271 attack attempts by 1,674 users across 30 LLM challenges. Our findings reveal automated approaches significantly outperform manual techniques (69.5% vs 47.6% success rate), despite only 5.2% of users employing automation. We demonstrate that automated approaches excel in systematic exploration and pattern matching challenges, while manual approaches retain speed advantages in certain creative reasoning scenarios, often solving problems 5x faster when successful. Challenge categories requiring systematic exploration are most effectively targeted through automation, while intuitive challenges sometimes favor manual techniques for time-to-solve metrics. These results illuminate how algorithmic testing is transforming AI red-teaming practices, with implications for both offensive security research and defensive measures. Our analysis suggests optimal security testing combines human creativity for strategy development with programmatic execution for thorough exploration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19855 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Mixed session visualization showing both manual exploration and periods of automation. Mixed sessions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Automated session visualization showing highly regular request patterns and timing. Automated sessions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Manual session visualization displaying irregular timing and exploratory patterns. Manual sessions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of automated versus manual approach success rates AI red-teaming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Challenge-by-challenge comparison of automated vs. manual success rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AIRTBench: Measuring Autonomous AI Red Teaming Capabilities in Language Models

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new 70-challenge benchmark measures whether language models can autonomously discover and exploit AI/ML security vulnerabilities, finding Claude-3.7-Sonnet solves 61% of challenges while the best open-source model s...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [5]

    SoK: A Systems Perspective on Compound AI Threats and Countermeasures

    Sarbartha Banerjee, Prateek Sahu, Mulong Luo, Anjo Vahldiek-Oberwagner, Neeraja J. Yadwadkar, and Mohit Tiwari. Sok: A systems perspective on compound ai threats and countermeasures, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13459

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [3]

    Pappas, and Eric Wong

    Patrick Chao, Alexander Robey, Edgar Dobriban, Hamed Hassani, George J. Pappas, and Eric Wong. Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries, 2024. URL https://arxiv .org/ abs/2310.08419

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Extract- ing training data from large language models

    Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Úlfar Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, and Colin Raffel. Extract- ing training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Secu- rity 21), pages 2633–2650. USENIX Association, Au- gust 2021. ISBN ...

    work page 2021

  4. [2]

    Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail?,

    Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, and Jacob Stein- hardt. Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail?,

    work page

  5. [4]

    Feder Cooper, Daphne Ip- polito, Christopher A

    Milad Nasr, Nicholas Carlini, Jonathan Hayase, Matthew Jagielski, A. Feder Cooper, Daphne Ip- polito, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Eric Wal- lace, Florian Tramèr, and Katherine Lee. Scalable extraction of training data from (production) lan- guage models, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2311.17035

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Llm agents can au- tonomously hack websites, 2024

    Richard Fang, Rohan Bindu, Akul Gupta, Qiusi Zhan, and Daniel Kang. Llm agents can au- tonomously hack websites, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.06664. 11

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Jailbreak and guard aligned language models with only few in-context demonstrations,

    Zeming Wei, Yifei Wang, Ang Li, Yichuan Mo, and Yisen Wang. Jailbreak and guard aligned language models with only few in-context demonstrations,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Saferag: Benchmarking security in retrieval- augmented generation of large language model, 2025

    Xun Liang, Simin Niu, Zhiyu Li, Sensen Zhang, Hanyu Wang, Feiyu Xiong, Jason Zhaoxin Fan, Bo Tang, Shichao Song, Mengwei Wang, and Jiawei Yang. Saferag: Benchmarking security in retrieval- augmented generation of large language model, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18636

    arXiv 2025

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Agentbench: Evaluating llms as agents, 2023

    Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xu- anyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, Shudan Zhang, Xi- ang Deng, Aohan Zeng, Zhengxiao Du, Chenhui Zhang, Sheng Shen, Tianjun Zhang, Yu Su, Huan Sun, Minlie Huang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. Agentbe...

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    OWASP Top 10 for LLM Ap- plications

    OWASP Foundation. OWASP Top 10 for LLM Ap- plications. https://owasp.org/www-project-top- 10 - for - large - language - model - applications,

  3. [11]

    Bowman, Amanda Askell, Roger Grosse, Danny Hernandez, Deep Ganguli, Evan Hubinger, Nicholas Schiefer, and Jared Kaplan

    Ethan Perez, Sam Ringer, Kamil˙ e Lukoši¯ ut˙ e, Ka- rina Nguyen, Edwin Chen, Scott Heiner, Craig Pet- tit, Catherine Olsson, Sandipan Kundu, Saurav Kadavath, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Ben Mann, Brian Israel, Bryan Seethor, Cameron McKinnon, Christopher Olah, Da Yan, Daniela Amod...

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    PyRIT: The python risk identification tool for llm red teaming

    Microsoft AI Red Team. PyRIT: The python risk identification tool for llm red teaming. https:// github.com/Azure/PyRIT, 2023. Accessed: 2025-04- 01

    2023

  5. [13]

    Accessed: 2025-04-01

    2025

  6. [14]

    Against the achilles’ heel: A survey on red teaming for generative models, 2024

    Lizhi Lin, Honglin Mu, Zenan Zhai, Minghan Wang, Yuxia Wang, Renxi Wang, Junjie Gao, Yixuan Zhang, Wanxiang Che, Timothy Baldwin, Xudong Han, and Haonan Li. Against the achilles’ heel: A survey on red teaming for generative models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.00629

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    do anything now

    Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, Yun Shen, and Yang Zhang. "do anything now": Charac- terizing and evaluating in-the-wild jailbreak prompts on large language models, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2308.03825

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models, 2024

    Xiaogeng Liu, Nan Xu, Muhao Chen, and Chaowei Xiao. Autodan: Generating stealthy jailbreak prompts on aligned large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04451

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ignore this title and hackaprompt: Exposing systemic vul- nerabilities of llms through a global scale prompt hacking competition

    Sander Schulhoff, Jeremy Pinto, Anaum Khan, Louis-François Bouchard, Chenglei Si, Svetlina Anati, Valen Tagliabue, Anson Liu Kost, Christo- pher Carnahan, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. Ignore this title and hackaprompt: Exposing systemic vul- nerabilities of llms through a global sc...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Context switching attack

    Valeriia Kuka. Context switching attack. https: / / learnprompting.org / docs / prompt_hacking / offensive_measures/context-switching, March

  11. [19]

    Summon a demon and bind it: A grounded theory of llm red teaming in the wild

    Nanna Inie, Jonathan Stray, and Leon Derczyn- ski. Summon a demon and bind it: A grounded theory of llm red teaming in the wild. CoRR, abs/2311.06237, 2023. URL https://doi .org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2311.06237

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [2023]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02483

    arXiv

  13. [2024]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06387

    arXiv

  14. [2025]

    12 Appendices Appendix A Challenge Descriptions This appendix provides detailed descriptions of the key challenge types analyzed in our study

    Accessed: 2025-04-01. 12 Appendices Appendix A Challenge Descriptions This appendix provides detailed descriptions of the key challenge types analyzed in our study. While our complete dataset encompasses 30 challenges, Table 2 summarizes the primary categories that represent t...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.