A methodological analysis of prompt perturbations and their effect on attack success rates

This work aims to investigate how different Large Language Models (LLMs) alignment methods affect the models' responses to prompt attacks. We selected open source models based on the most common alignment methods, namely, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF). We conducted a systematic analysis using statistical methods to verify how sensitive the Attack Success Rate (ASR) is when we apply variations to prompts designed to elicit inappropriate content from LLMs. Our results show that even small prompt modifications can significantly change the Attack Success Rate (ASR) according to the statistical tests we run, making the models more or less susceptible to types of attack. Critically, our results demonstrate that running existing 'attack benchmarks' alone may not be sufficient to elicit all possible vulnerabilities of both models and alignment methods. This paper thus contributes to ongoing efforts on model attack evaluation by means of systematic and statistically-based analyses of the different alignment methods and how sensitive their ASR is to prompt variation.

A Comprehensive Evaluation framework of Alignment Techniques for LLMs

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into real-world applications, ensuring their outputs align with human values and safety standards has become critical. The field has developed diverse alignment approaches including traditional fine-tuning methods (RLHF, instruction tuning), post-hoc correction systems, and inference-time interventions, each with distinct advantages and limitations. However, the lack of unified evaluation frameworks makes it difficult to systematically compare these paradigms and guide deployment decisions. This paper introduces a multi-dimensional evaluation of alignment techniques for LLMs, a comprehensive evaluation framework that provides a systematic comparison across all major alignment paradigms. Our framework assesses methods along four key dimensions: alignment detection, alignment quality, computational efficiency, and robustness. Through experiments across diverse base models and alignment strategies, we demonstrate the utility of our framework in identifying strengths and limitations of current state-of-the-art models, providing valuable insights for future research directions.

NECE: Narrative Event Chain Extraction Toolkit

NECE is an event-based text analysis toolkit built for narrative documents. NECE aims to provide users open and easy accesses to an event-based summary and abstraction of long narrative documents through both a graphic interface and a python package, which can be readily used in narrative analysis, understanding, or other advanced purposes. Our work addresses the challenge of long passage events extraction and temporal ordering of key events; at the same time, it offers options to select and view events related to narrative entities, such as main characters and gender groups. We conduct human evaluation to demonstrate the quality of the event chain extraction system and character features mining algorithms. Lastly, we shed light on the toolkit's potential downstream applications by demonstrating its usage in gender bias analysis and Question-Answering tasks.