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.

DECASTE: Unveiling Caste Stereotypes in Large Language Models through Multi-Dimensional Bias Analysis

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) and expanded their applications across diverse domains. However, despite their impressive capabilities, LLMs have been shown to reflect and perpetuate harmful societal biases, including those based on ethnicity, gender, and religion. A critical and underexplored issue is the reinforcement of caste-based biases, particularly towards India's marginalized caste groups such as Dalits and Shudras. In this paper, we address this gap by proposing DECASTE, a novel, multi-dimensional framework designed to detect and assess both implicit and explicit caste biases in LLMs. Our approach evaluates caste fairness across four dimensions: socio-cultural, economic, educational, and political, using a range of customized prompting strategies. By benchmarking several state-of-the-art LLMs, we reveal that these models systematically reinforce caste biases, with significant disparities observed in the treatment of oppressed versus dominant caste groups. For example, bias scores are notably elevated when comparing Dalits and Shudras with dominant caste groups, reflecting societal prejudices that persist in model outputs. These results expose the subtle yet pervasive caste biases in LLMs and emphasize the need for more comprehensive and inclusive bias evaluation methodologies that assess the potential risks of deploying such models in real-world contexts.