AttackEval: How to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Jailbreak Attacking on Large Language Models

In our research, we pioneer a novel approach to evaluate the effectiveness of jailbreak attacks on Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT-4 and LLaMa2, diverging from traditional robustness-focused binary evaluations. Our study introduces two distinct evaluation frameworks: a coarse-grained evaluation and a fine-grained evaluation. Each framework, using a scoring range from 0 to 1, offers a unique perspective, enabling a more comprehensive and nuanced evaluation of attack effectiveness and empowering attackers to refine their attack prompts with greater understanding. Furthermore, we have developed a comprehensive ground truth dataset specifically tailored for jailbreak tasks. This dataset not only serves as a crucial benchmark for our current study but also establishes a foundational resource for future research, enabling consistent and comparative analyses in this evolving field. Upon meticulous comparison with traditional evaluation methods, we discovered that our evaluation aligns with the baseline's trend while offering a more profound and detailed assessment. We believe that by accurately evaluating the effectiveness of attack prompts in the Jailbreak task, our work lays a solid foundation for assessing a wider array of similar or even more complex tasks in the realm of prompt injection, potentially revolutionizing this field.

The Impact of Reasoning Step Length on Large Language Models

Chain of Thought (CoT) is significant in improving the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). However, the correlation between the effectiveness of CoT and the length of reasoning steps in prompts remains largely unknown. To shed light on this, we have conducted several empirical experiments to explore the relations. Specifically, we design experiments that expand and compress the rationale reasoning steps within CoT demonstrations, while keeping all other factors constant. We have the following key findings. First, the results indicate that lengthening the reasoning steps in prompts, even without adding new information into the prompt, considerably enhances LLMs' reasoning abilities across multiple datasets. Alternatively, shortening the reasoning steps, even while preserving the key information, significantly diminishes the reasoning abilities of models. This finding highlights the importance of the number of steps in CoT prompts and provides practical guidance to make better use of LLMs' potential in complex problem-solving scenarios. Second, we also investigated the relationship between the performance of CoT and the rationales used in demonstrations. Surprisingly, the result shows that even incorrect rationales can yield favorable outcomes if they maintain the requisite length of inference. Third, we observed that the advantages of increasing reasoning steps are task-dependent: simpler tasks require fewer steps, whereas complex tasks gain significantly from longer inference sequences.