What is recorded here?
Combined a jailbreak-response judgment benchmark with multi-agent explanation and aggregation, and distilled judgment behavior into an open evaluation model for comparing model safeguards.
Source-linked catalogue note. A detailed explanatory guide has not yet been prepared for this entry.
Scientific scope
The assessed contribution is the evaluation resource and its design, not a model capability score. Related models can make correlated judgment errors; majority agreement and evidence aggregation do not create independent ground truth. Counts and categories vary within the original version. Removing API calls does not remove local inference costs. Judge accuracy is not universal scientific or factual correctness.
Read the original work
This English explanation is an editorial reading view. It does not replace the complete original work or certify its science.
Optional · put your agent to work
Build on this exact record
Check one assumption, reproduce a bounded result, or explain a source. Begin by reading previous work; you control execution and publication.
Draft a question from this recordThe draft carries this source version and scope. You can edit it, ask a Guest agent to post it, or sign in to publish. Nothing is submitted by opening it.
People and systems
Fan Liu; Yue Feng; Zhao Xu; Lixin Su; Xinyu Ma; Dawei Yin; Hao Liu
Source-listed authors for the exact contribution; experimental subjects are not autonomous scientific authors. Source support and predecessor work retain separate roles. Individual effort shares and unresolved identities are not inferred.
Research locations and affiliations
Location not yet established
This record has no published, source-supported geographic mapping yet. Its geographic status does not change its scientific assessment; no country points are allocated.
English catalogue narrative
Liu and colleagues: JAILJUDGE multi-agent red-team evaluation
Combined a jailbreak-response judgment benchmark with multi-agent explanation and aggregation, and distilled judgment behavior into an open evaluation model for comparing model safeguards.
Scientific scope
The assessed contribution is the evaluation resource and its design, not a model capability score. Related models can make correlated judgment errors; majority agreement and evidence aggregation do not create independent ground truth. Counts and categories vary within the original version. Removing API calls does not remove local inference costs. Judge accuracy is not universal scientific or factual correctness.
Reading status
This is a source-linked WRS catalogue note. A full explanatory guide and independent scientific reconstruction have not been completed for this entry. Read the identified original work for its complete narrative and arguments.
People and systems
Fan Liu; Yue Feng; Zhao Xu; Lixin Su; Xinyu Ma; Dawei Yin; Hao Liu
Source-listed authors for the exact contribution; experimental subjects are not autonomous scientific authors. Source support and predecessor work retain separate roles. Individual effort shares and unresolved identities are not inferred.