mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SelfPrompt: Autonomously Evaluating LLM Robustness via Domain-Constrained Knowledge Guidelines and Refined Adversarial Prompts

arXiv 2412.00765 ↗First posted 1 Dec 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 10

On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails

Abstract (arXiv)

Traditional methods for evaluating the robustness of large language models (LLMs) often rely on standardized benchmarks, which can escalate costs and limit evaluations across varied domains. This paper introduces a novel framework designed to autonomously evaluate the robustness of LLMs by incorporating refined adversarial prompts and domain-constrained knowledge guidelines in the form of knowledge graphs. Our method systematically generates descriptive sentences from domain-constrained knowledge graph triplets to formulate adversarial prompts, enhancing the relevance and challenge of the evaluation. These prompts, generated by the LLM itself and tailored to evaluate its own robustness, undergo a rigorous filtering and refinement process, ensuring that only those with high textual fluency and semantic fidelity are used. This self-evaluation mechanism allows the LLM to evaluate its robustness without the need for external benchmarks. We assess the effectiveness of our framework through extensive testing on both proprietary models like ChatGPT and open-source models such as Llama-3.1, Phi-3, and Mistral. Results confirm that our approach not only reduces dependency on conventional data but also provides a targeted and efficient means of evaluating LLM robustness in constrained domains.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 24 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Dec 2024.

Builds on

24 of 41 references.

References · 24

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  3. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
  4. 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,928
  5. 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
  6. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
  7. 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 505
  8. 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 299
  9. 2021Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 227
  10. 2019Probing Neural Network Comprehension of Natural Language Argumentscited by 212
  11. 2023On the Robustness of ChatGPT: An Adversarial and Out-of-distribution Perspectivecited by 208
  12. 2020Adversarial Filters of Dataset Biasescited by 159
12 more
  1. 2021Cutting Down on Prompts and Parameters: Simple Few-Shot Learning with Language Modelscited by 139
  2. 2023An LLM can Fool Itself: A Prompt-Based Adversarial Attackcited by 111
  3. 2021Robustness Gym: Unifying the NLP Evaluation Landscapecited by 107
  4. 2021Can Language Models be Biomedical Knowledge Bases?cited by 83
  5. 2024Mind Your Format: Towards Consistent Evaluation of In-Context Learning Improvementscited by 82
  6. 2022GLUE-X: Evaluating Natural Language Understanding Models from an Out-of-distribution Generalization Perspectivecited by 72
  7. 2023On Robustness of Prompt-based Semantic Parsing with Large Pre-trained Language Model: An Empirical Study on Codexcited by 41
  8. 2023Mind the instructions: a holistic evaluation of consistency and interactions in prompt-based learningcited by 31
  9. 2024Examining the robustness of LLM evaluation to the distributional assumptions of benchmarkscited by 31
  10. 2023Using Large Language Models for Zero-Shot Natural Language Generation from Knowledge Graphscited by 24
  11. 2023A Survey on Out-of-Distribution Evaluation of Neural NLP Modelscited by 20
  12. 2016Knowledge Questions from Knowledge Graphscited by 15

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 5; 2026: 4.

10 papers.