ERTS: Adversarial Robustness Testing of Ethical AI via Semantic Perturbation in a Bounded Consequence Space
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As AI systems are deployed in high-stakes ethical contexts such as healthcare triage, autonomous vehicle control, and employment screening, formal methods for evaluating their robustness against adversarial manipulation of ethical reasoning remain underdeveloped. This paper introduces the Ethical Robustness Testing System (ERTS), a closed-pipeline framework that: (1) encodes ethical dilemmas into a 22-dimensional Ethical Consequence Space (ECS) grounded in established ethical theory; (2) applies 17 semantic perturbation functions subject to 6 validity constraint classes including a novel semantic coherence constraint; (3) measures decision deviation via a 4-component Ethical Instability Index (EII); and (4) produces domain-adaptive pre-deployment robustness assessment verdicts. We evaluate 4 structured baseline models and 2 production LLMs (Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.2) across 50 ethical scenarios spanning 8 deployment domains, generating 1,500 adversarial test cases. Results demonstrate that only 33% of models achieve assessment clearance, with the local Llama-3.2 model proving particularly vulnerable to fairness corruption and information degradation attacks (ERS = 0.737). To the best of our knowledge, no existing framework combines a bounded ethical consequence space, semantic coherence constraints, and domain-adaptive assessment in a single adversarial testing pipeline.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2026.
Builds on
25 of 51 references.
References · 25
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,415
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,998
- 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,592
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,154
13 more
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 1,026
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learnedcited by 729
- 2020Aligning AI With Shared Human Valuescited by 723
- 2017Wild Patterns: Ten Years After the Rise of Adversarial Machine Learningcited by 414
- 2024TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Modelscited by 285
- 2017Inverse Reward Designcited by 249
- 2018Adversarial Robustness Toolbox v1.0.0cited by 215
- 2019Adversarial Policies: Attacking Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 214
- 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 174
- 2017AI Safety Gridworldscited by 110
- 2022When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgmentcited by 93
- 2023Survey on AI Ethics: A Socio-technical Perspectivecited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.