Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

PandaGuard: Systematic Evaluation of LLM Safety against Jailbreaking Attacks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.13862 v3 pith:5DMEZKUI submitted 2025-05-20 cs.CR cs.CL

PandaGuard: Systematic Evaluation of LLM Safety against Jailbreaking Attacks

classification cs.CR cs.CL
keywords safetydefenseattackevaluationframeworkacrossjudgejudgment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable capabilities but remain vulnerable to adversarial prompts known as jailbreaks, which can bypass safety alignment and elicit harmful outputs. Despite growing efforts in LLM safety research, existing evaluations are often fragmented, focused on isolated attack or defense techniques, and lack systematic, reproducible analysis. In this work, we introduce PandaGuard, a unified and modular framework that models LLM jailbreak safety as a multi-agent system comprising attackers, defenders, and judges. Our framework implements 19 attack methods and 12 defense mechanisms, along with multiple judgment strategies, all within a flexible plugin architecture supporting diverse LLM interfaces, multiple interaction modes, and configuration-driven experimentation that enhances reproducibility and practical deployment. Built on this framework, we develop PandaBench, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates the interactions between these attack/defense methods across 49 LLMs and various judgment approaches, requiring over 3 billion tokens to execute. Our extensive evaluation reveals key insights into model vulnerabilities, defense cost-performance trade-offs, and judge consistency. We find that no single defense is optimal across all dimensions and that judge disagreement introduces nontrivial variance in safety assessments. We release the code, configurations, and evaluation results to support transparent and reproducible research in LLM safety.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Learning-Based Automated Adversarial Red-Teaming for Robustness Evaluation of Large Language Models

    cs.CR 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A meta-prompt and hierarchical detection framework automates LLM red-teaming, achieving 3.9 times higher vulnerability discovery rate than manual methods with 89% accuracy on GPT-OSS-20B.

  2. Beyond I'm Sorry, I Can't: Dissecting Large Language Model Refusal

    cs.CL 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Sparse autoencoders plus greedy filtering and factorization-machine interaction modeling identify minimal sets of features in Gemma-2-2B-IT and LLaMA-3.1-8B-IT whose ablation produces jailbreaks by flipping refusal to...

  3. SoK: Robustness in Large Language Models against Jailbreak Attacks

    cs.CR 2026-05 accept novelty 5.0

    The paper taxonomizes jailbreak attacks and defenses for LLMs, introduces the Security Cube multi-dimensional evaluation framework, benchmarks 13 attacks and 5 defenses, and identifies open challenges in LLM robustness.