Adversarial Alignment for LLMs Requires Simpler, Reproducible, and More Measurable Objectives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11910v2
• Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:17:57 GMT
• Title: Adversarial Alignment for LLMs Requires Simpler, Reproducible, and More Measurable Objectives
• Authors: Leo Schwinn, Yan Scholten, Tom Wollschläger, Sophie Xhonneux, Stephen Casper, Stephan Günnemann, Gauthier Gidel,
• Abstract summary: Misaligned research objectives have hindered progress in adversarial robustness research over the past decade.<n>We argue that realigned objectives are necessary for meaningful progress in adversarial alignment.
• Score: 52.863024096759816
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Misaligned research objectives have considerably hindered progress in adversarial robustness research over the past decade. For instance, an extensive focus on optimizing target metrics, while neglecting rigorous standardized evaluation, has led researchers to pursue ad-hoc heuristic defenses that were seemingly effective. Yet, most of these were exposed as flawed by subsequent evaluations, ultimately contributing little measurable progress to the field. In this position paper, we illustrate that current research on the robustness of large language models (LLMs) risks repeating past patterns with potentially worsened real-world implications. To address this, we argue that realigned objectives are necessary for meaningful progress in adversarial alignment. To this end, we build on established cybersecurity taxonomy to formally define differences between past and emerging threat models that apply to LLMs. Using this framework, we illustrate that progress requires disentangling adversarial alignment into addressable sub-problems and returning to core academic principles, such as measureability, reproducibility, and comparability. Although the field presents significant challenges, the fresh start on adversarial robustness offers the unique opportunity to build on past experience while avoiding previous mistakes.

Related papers

• Beyond Single-Sentence Prompts: Upgrading Value Alignment Benchmarks with Dialogues and Stories [14.605576275135522]
  evaluating value alignment of large language models (LLMs) has traditionally relied on single-sentence adversarial prompts. We propose an upgraded value alignment benchmark that moves beyond single-sentence prompts by incorporating multi-turn dialogues and narrative-based scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T03:31:37Z)
• A Survey of Efficient Reasoning for Large Reasoning Models: Language, Multimodality, and Beyond [88.5807076505261]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated strong performance gains by scaling up the length of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning during inference. A growing concern lies in their tendency to produce excessively long reasoning traces. This inefficiency introduces significant challenges for training, inference, and real-world deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T15:36:30Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise. We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• Rethinking LLM Unlearning Objectives: A Gradient Perspective and Go Beyond [39.39558417665764]
  Large language models (LLMs) should undergo rigorous audits to identify potential risks, such as copyright and privacy infringements. We propose a toolkit of the gradient effect (G-effect), quantifying the impacts of unlearning objectives on model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T16:59:21Z)
• Deception in LLMs: Self-Preservation and Autonomous Goals in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Recent advances in Large Language Models have incorporated planning and reasoning capabilities.<n>This has reduced errors in mathematical and logical tasks while improving accuracy.<n>Our study examines DeepSeek R1, a model trained to output reasoning tokens similar to OpenAI's o1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T21:26:37Z)
• Toward Robust RALMs: Revealing the Impact of Imperfect Retrieval on Retrieval-Augmented Language Models [5.10832476049103]
  We identify three common scenarios-unanswerable, adversarial, conflicting-where retrieved document sets can confuse RALM with plausible real-world examples. We propose a new adversarial attack method, Generative model-based ADVersarial attack (GenADV) and a novel metric Robustness under Additional Document (RAD) Our findings reveal that RALMs often fail to identify the unanswerability or contradiction of a document set, which frequently leads to hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T13:40:33Z)
• Temporal-Difference Variational Continual Learning [89.32940051152782]
  A crucial capability of Machine Learning models in real-world applications is the ability to continuously learn new tasks. In Continual Learning settings, models often struggle to balance learning new tasks with retaining previous knowledge. We propose new learning objectives that integrate the regularization effects of multiple previous posterior estimations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T10:58:41Z)
• Towards Effective Evaluations and Comparisons for LLM Unlearning Methods [97.2995389188179]
  This paper seeks to refine the evaluation of machine unlearning for large language models. It addresses two key challenges -- the robustness of evaluation metrics and the trade-offs between competing goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T14:41:00Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Models [86.692994151323]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide range of tasks in various domains. Despite their impressive performance, they can be unreliable due to factual errors in their generations. Assessing their confidence and calibrating them across different tasks can help mitigate risks and enable LLMs to produce better generations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T16:43:29Z)
• Large Language Model Alignment: A Survey [42.03229317132863]
  The potential of large language models (LLMs) is undeniably vast; however, they may yield texts that are imprecise, misleading, or even detrimental. This survey endeavors to furnish an extensive exploration of alignment methodologies designed for LLMs. We also probe into salient issues including the models' interpretability, and potential vulnerabilities to adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-26T15:49:23Z)
• From Instructions to Intrinsic Human Values -- A Survey of Alignment Goals for Big Models [48.326660953180145]
  We conduct a survey of different alignment goals in existing work and trace their evolution paths to help identify the most essential goal. Our analysis reveals a goal transformation from fundamental abilities to value orientation, indicating the potential of intrinsic human values as the alignment goal for enhanced LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T09:11:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.