Robustness of Large Language Models Against Adversarial Attacks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in various applications necessitates a rigorous evaluation of their robustness against adversarial attacks. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study on the robustness of GPT LLM family. We employ two distinct evaluation methods to assess their resilience. The first method introduces character-level text attack in input prompts, testing the models on three sentiment classification datasets: StanfordNLP/IMDB, Yelp Reviews, and SST-2. The second method involves using jailbreak prompts to challenge the safety mechanisms of the LLMs. Our experiments reveal significant variations in the robustness of these models, demonstrating their varying degrees of vulnerability to both character-level and semantic-level adversarial attacks. These findings underscore the necessity for improved adversarial training and enhanced safety mechanisms to bolster the robustness of LLMs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it