{"id":"arxiv:2310.09624","kind":"preprint","title":"ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models","authors":["Alex Mei","Sharon Levy","William Yang Wang"],"author_count":3,"year":2023,"published":"2023-10-14","venue":null,"cited_by":null,"doi":null,"arxiv_id":"2310.09624","nct_id":null,"source_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09624","archive_url":"https://space-kitty.com/papers/arxiv:2310.09624","updated":"2023-11-11","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"openalex_id":null,"pdf_url":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.09624","abstract":"As large language models are integrated into society, robustness toward a suite of prompts is increasingly important to maintain reliability in a high-variance environment.Robustness evaluations must comprehensively encapsulate the various settings in which a user may invoke an intelligent system. This paper proposes ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consisting of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. For robust safety evaluation, we apply these methods in the critical domain of AI safety to algorithmically generate a test suite of prompts covering diverse robustness settings -- semantic equivalence, related scenarios, and adversarial. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. Despite dedicated safeguards in existing state-of-the-art models, we find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings, raising concerns for users' physical safety.","abstract_license":"CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)","license":null,"is_open_access":false,"retracted":false,"peer_reviewed":false,"categories":["cs.CL","cs.AI","cs.LG"],"details":null,"provenance":"arxiv","attribution":"Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.","topics":[],"cited_in_dossiers":[]}