Benchmarking Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation in Large Language Models: Scalable Automated Assessment with LLM-as-a-Judge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07887v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 16:00:59 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation in Large Language Models: Scalable Automated Assessment with LLM-as-a-Judge
• Authors: Riccardo Cantini, Alessio Orsino, Massimo Ruggiero, Domenico Talia,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, driving advancements in machine translation, summarization, and conversational agents.<n>Recent studies indicate that LLMs remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks designed to elicit biased responses.<n>This work proposes a scalable benchmarking framework to evaluate LLM robustness against adversarial bias elicitation.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, driving advancements in machine translation, summarization, and conversational agents. However, their increasing integration into critical societal domains has raised concerns about embedded biases, which can perpetuate stereotypes and compromise fairness. These biases stem from various sources, including historical inequalities in training data, linguistic imbalances, and adversarial manipulation. Despite mitigation efforts, recent studies indicate that LLMs remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks designed to elicit biased responses. This work proposes a scalable benchmarking framework to evaluate LLM robustness against adversarial bias elicitation. Our methodology involves (i) systematically probing models with a multi-task approach targeting biases across various sociocultural dimensions, (ii) quantifying robustness through safety scores using an LLM-as-a-Judge approach for automated assessment of model responses, and (iii) employing jailbreak techniques to investigate vulnerabilities in safety mechanisms. Our analysis examines prevalent biases in both small and large state-of-the-art models and their impact on model safety. Additionally, we assess the safety of domain-specific models fine-tuned for critical fields, such as medicine. Finally, we release a curated dataset of bias-related prompts, CLEAR-Bias, to facilitate systematic vulnerability benchmarking. Our findings reveal critical trade-offs between model size and safety, aiding the development of fairer and more robust future language models.

Related papers

• Towards Robust LLMs: an Adversarial Robustness Measurement Framework [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to adversarial perturbations, undermining their reliability in high-stakes applications. We adapt the Robustness Measurement and Assessment framework to quantify LLM resilience against adversarial inputs without requiring access to model parameters. Our work provides a systematic methodology to assess LLM robustness, advancing the development of more reliable language models for real-world deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T16:36:19Z)
• MIRAGE: Multimodal Immersive Reasoning and Guided Exploration for Red-Team Jailbreak Attacks [85.3303135160762]
  MIRAGE is a novel framework that exploits narrative-driven context and role immersion to circumvent safety mechanisms in Multimodal Large Language Models.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art performance, improving attack success rates by up to 17.5% over the best baselines.<n>We demonstrate that role immersion and structured semantic reconstruction can activate inherent model biases, facilitating the model's spontaneous violation of ethical safeguards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T20:38:42Z)
• Fine-Grained Bias Detection in LLM: Enhancing detection mechanisms for nuanced biases [0.0]
  This study presents a detection framework to identify nuanced biases in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>The approach integrates contextual analysis, interpretability via attention mechanisms, and counterfactual data augmentation to capture hidden biases.<n>Results show improvements in detecting subtle biases compared to conventional methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-08T04:43:01Z)
• 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.<n>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)
• Conformal Tail Risk Control for Large Language Model Alignment [9.69785515652571]
  General-purpose scoring models have been created to automate the process of quantifying tail events.<n>This phenomenon introduces potential human-machine misalignment between the respective scoring mechanisms.<n>We present a lightweight calibration framework for blackbox models that ensures the alignment of humans and machines with provable guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T17:10:54Z)
• Adversarial Reasoning at Jailbreaking Time [49.70772424278124]
  We develop an adversarial reasoning approach to automatic jailbreaking via test-time computation.<n>Our approach introduces a new paradigm in understanding LLM vulnerabilities, laying the foundation for the development of more robust and trustworthy AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T18:59:01Z)
• Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation [4.606140332500086]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T23:54:53Z)
• HarmLevelBench: Evaluating Harm-Level Compliance and the Impact of Quantization on Model Alignment [1.8843687952462742]
  This paper aims to address gaps in the current literature on jailbreaking techniques and the evaluation of LLM vulnerabilities. Our contributions include the creation of a novel dataset designed to assess the harmfulness of model outputs across multiple harm levels. We provide a comprehensive benchmark of state-of-the-art jailbreaking attacks, specifically targeting the Vicuna 13B v1.5 model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:02:49Z)
• 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)
• Unveiling Safety Vulnerabilities of Large Language Models [4.562678399685183]
  This paper introduces a unique dataset containing adversarial examples in the form of questions, which we call AttaQ. We assess the efficacy of our dataset by analyzing the vulnerabilities of various models when subjected to it. We introduce a novel automatic approach for identifying and naming vulnerable semantic regions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T16:50:33Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Models [86.02610674750345]
  Adversarial GLUE (AdvGLUE) is a new multi-task benchmark to explore and evaluate the vulnerabilities of modern large-scale language models under various types of adversarial attacks. We apply 14 adversarial attack methods to GLUE tasks to construct AdvGLUE, which is further validated by humans for reliable annotations. All the language models and robust training methods we tested perform poorly on AdvGLUE, with scores lagging far behind the benign accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-04T12:59:55Z)

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.