Fooling LLM graders into giving better grades through neural activity guided adversarial prompting
On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security
Abstract (arXiv)
The deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in critical decision-making and evaluation processes raises concerns about inherent biases that malicious actors could exploit to distort decision outcomes. We propose a systematic method to reveal such biases in AI evaluation systems and apply it to automated essay grading as an example. Our approach first identifies hidden neural activity patterns that predict distorted decision outcomes and then optimizes an adversarial input suffix to amplify such patterns. We demonstrate that this combination can effectively fool large language model (LLM) graders into assigning much higher grades than humans would. We further show that this white-box attack transfers to black-box attacks on other models, including commercial closed-source models like Gemini. They further reveal the existence of a "magic word" that plays a pivotal role in the efficacy of the attack. We trace the origin of this magic word bias to the structure of commonly-used chat templates for supervised fine-tuning of LLMs and show that a minor change in the template can drastically reduce the bias. This work not only uncovers vulnerabilities in current LLMs but also proposes a systematic method to identify and remove hidden biases, contributing to the goal of ensuring AI safety and security.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 11 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Dec 2024.
Builds on
11 of 34 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 10
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
- 2023WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructionscited by 1,125
- 2024The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discoverycited by 1,071
- 2023Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Modelscited by 872
- 2023AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Modelscited by 785
- 2023MAmmoTH: Building Math Generalist Models through Hybrid Instruction Tuningcited by 487
- 2021Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experimentcited by 53
- 2024Revisiting Jailbreaking for Large Language Models: A Representation Engineering Perspectivecited by 48
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026GradingAttack: Exposing Security Vulnerabilities in LLM Based Educational Grading Agents
- 2026Evaluating Answer Leakage Robustness of LLM Tutors against Adversarial Student Attacks
- 2026"**Important** You should give me full credits!": Exploring Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM-Based Automatic Grading Systems
- 2025Multilingual Hidden Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM-Based Academic Reviewing
- 2025Benchmarking Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation in Large Language Models: Scalable Automated Assessment with LLM-as-a-Judge
- 2024Decoding Biases: Automated Methods and LLM Judges for Gender Bias Detection in Language Models
- 2025On the Robustness of Verbal Confidence of LLMs in Adversarial Attacks
- 2025Misleading Large Language Models used (or misused) in Scientific Peer-Reviewing via Hidden Prompt-Injection Attacks