Red Teaming LLMs as Socio-Technical Practice: From Exploration and Data Creation to Evaluation
On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security
Abstract (arXiv)
Recently, red teaming, with roots in security, has become a key evaluative approach to ensure the safety and reliability of Generative Artificial Intelligence. However, most existing work emphasizes technical benchmarks and attack success rates, leaving the socio-technical practices of how red teaming datasets are defined, created, and evaluated under-examined. Drawing on 22 interviews with practitioners who design and evaluate red teaming datasets, we examine the data practices and standards that underpin this work. Because adversarial datasets determine the scope and accuracy of model evaluations, they are critical artifacts for assessing potential harms from large language models. Our contributions are first, empirical evidence of practitioners conceptualizing red teaming and developing and evaluating red teaming datasets. Second, we reflect on how practitioners' conceptualization of risk leads to overlooking the context, interaction type, and user specificity. We conclude with three opportunities for HCI researchers to expand the conceptualization and data practices for red-teaming.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 47 of its 101 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Feb 2026.
Builds on
47 of 101 references.
Closest ancestors · 9
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Multi-lingual Multi-turn Automated Red Teaming for LLMs4 Apr
- 2025OpenAI's Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems24 Jan
- 2024The Human Factor in AI Red Teaming: Perspectives from Social and Collaborative Computing10 Jul
- 2024Against The Achilles' Heel: A Survey on Red Teaming for Generative Models31 Mar
- 2024A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming7 Mar
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal6 Feb
- 2024Red-Teaming for Generative AI: Silver Bullet or Security Theater?29 Jan
- 2023Explore, Establish, Exploit: Red Teaming Language Models from Scratch15 Jun
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Models7 Feb
Other references · 38
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,235
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
- 2021Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Modelscited by 957
- 2023BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Datasetcited by 828
- 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 540
- 2024A StrongREJECT for Empty Jailbreakscited by 352
- 2021The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Researchcited by 172
- 2021Challenges in Detoxifying Language Modelscited by 169
- 2023Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systemscited by 154
26 more
- 2023Evaluating the Social Impact of Generative AI Systems in Systems and Societycited by 91
- 2023The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practicecited by 86
- 2021Do Datasets Have Politics? Disciplinary Values in Computer Vision Dataset Developmentcited by 85
- 2023Luminate: Structured Generation and Exploration of Design Space with Large Language Models for Human-AI Co-Creationcited by 63
- 2025MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Taskscited by 60
- 2025Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluationcited by 57
- 2023Everyone's Voice Matters: Quantifying Annotation Disagreement Using Demographic Informationcited by 52
- 2020Between Subjectivity and Imposition: Power Dynamics in Data Annotation for Computer Visioncited by 25
- 2024The Compute Divide in Machine Learning: A Threat to Academic Contribution and Scrutiny?cited by 20
- 2025Reality Check: A New Evaluation Ecosystem Is Necessary to Understand AI's Real World Effectscited by 18
- 2023Fairness in Language Models Beyond English: Gaps and Challengescited by 16
- 2023Understanding Multi-Turn Toxic Behaviors in Open-Domain Chatbotscited by 14
- 2023Sociotechnical Audits: Broadening the Algorithm Auditing Lens to Investigate Targeted Advertisingcited by 12
- 2025We Should Evaluate Real-World Impactcited by 12
- 2021Studying Up Machine Learning Data: Why Talk About Bias When We Mean Power?cited by 11
- 2024Evaluating AI Evaluation: Perils and Prospectscited by 11
- 2025AI Mismatches: Identifying Potential Algorithmic Harms Before AI Developmentcited by 10
- 2025SPHERE: An Evaluation Card for Human-AI Systemscited by 9
- 2025Understanding Generative AI Risks for Youth: A Taxonomy Based on Empirical Datacited by 6
- 2024LADICA: A Large Shared Display Interface for Generative AI Cognitive Assistance in Co-Located Team Collaborationcited by 5
- 2025Stakeholder Participation for Responsible AI Development: Disconnects Between Guidance and Current Practicecited by 5
- 2025Effective Automation to Support the Human Infrastructure in AI Red Teamingcited by 3
- 2025Online Safety for All: Sociocultural Insights from a Systematic Review of Youth Online Safety in the Global Southcited by 3
- 2025A Different Approach to AI Safety: Proceedings from the Columbia Convening on Openness in Artificial Intelligence and AI Safetycited by 3
- 2024Understanding the Dataset Practitioners Behind Large Language Model Developmentcited by 2
- 2024Youth as Peer Auditors: Engaging Teenagers with Algorithm Auditing of Machine Learning Applicationscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.