Adversarial Robustness of Language Models

Latest papers 123

Dec 3, 2024cs.CL

TSCheater: Generating High-Quality Tibetan Adversarial Texts via Visual Similarity

Language models based on deep neural networks are vulnerable to textual adversarial attacks. While rich-resource languages like English are receiving focused attention, Tibetan, a cross-border language, is gradually being studied due to its abundant ancient literature and critical language strategy. Currently, there are several Tibetan adversarial text generation methods, but they do not fully consider the textual features of Tibetan script and overestimate the quality of generated adversarial texts. To address this issue, we propose a novel Tibetan adversarial text generation method called TSCheater, which considers the characteristic of Tibetan encoding and the feature that visually similar syllables have similar semantics. This method can also be transferred to other abugidas, such as Devanagari script. We utilize a self-constructed Tibetan syllable visual similarity database called TSVSDB to generate substitution candidates and adopt a greedy algorithm-based scoring mechanism to determine substitution order. After that, we conduct the method on eight victim language models. Experimentally, TSCheater outperforms existing methods in attack effectiveness, perturbation magnitude, semantic similarity, visual similarity, and human acceptance. Finally, we construct the first Tibetan adversarial robustness evaluation benchmark called AdvTS, which is generated by existing methods and proofread by humans.
May 28, 2024cs.CL

Learning diverse attacks on large language models for robust red-teaming and safety tuning

Red-teaming, or identifying prompts that elicit harmful responses, is a critical step in ensuring the safe and responsible deployment of large language models (LLMs). Developing effective protection against many modes of attack prompts requires discovering diverse attacks. Automated red-teaming typically uses reinforcement learning to fine-tune an attacker language model to generate prompts that elicit undesirable responses from a target LLM, as measured, for example, by an auxiliary toxicity classifier. We show that even with explicit regularization to favor novelty and diversity, existing approaches suffer from mode collapse or fail to generate effective attacks. As a flexible and probabilistically principled alternative, we propose to use GFlowNet fine-tuning, followed by a secondary smoothing phase, to train the attacker model to generate diverse and effective attack prompts. We find that the attacks generated by our method are effective against a wide range of target LLMs, both with and without safety tuning, and transfer well between target LLMs. Finally, we demonstrate that models safety-tuned using a dataset of red-teaming prompts generated by our method are robust to attacks from other RL-based red-teaming approaches.
Date pendingcs.CR

Who Judges the Judges? A Chinese Safety QA Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Responses and Safety Judges

Safety benchmarks for large language models often assess the risk of a user query, although the outcome of question answering depends on whether the response violates a policy. This distinction is critical in Chinese harmful-content evaluation, where linguistic variation and adversarial transformations can obscure risky intent. We introduce C-SafeQA, a policy-grounded benchmark for response-level Chinese safety evaluation. It comprises 538 base queries and 8,877 adversarial queries answered by four full-model LLM deployments, yielding 37,660 query-response records labeled safe, unsafe, or disputed. Reference labels are generated through agreement-aware multi-model adjudication and blind audits of stratified subsets by three safety experts. C-SafeQA supports both evaluation of target-model safety and auditing of seven automated safety judges against shared reference labels. Unsafe-response rates range from 0.93% to 3.35% on base queries and from 11.68% to 30.05% on adversarial queries. On the adversarial subset, judges show substantial trade-offs between unsafe-response recall and risk-query-conditioned safe-response false positive rate, and no judge dominates all metrics. Both acrostic transformations reduce unsafe recall for all seven judges, revealing mechanism-specific evaluator weaknesses. Dataset records, metadata, verification code, and judge scripts are publicly released to support recomputation, while benchmark construction, target-response generation, and private adjudication remain outside the release boundary.