atlas

Research map / Adversarial robustness and security / Attacks on text and graphs

HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal

ICML 2024 · Adversarial robustness and security › Attacks on text and graphs · approach: LLM jailbreak and injection defense · 23 citations (OpenAlex)

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Introduces HarmBench, a standardized benchmark of 510 harmful behaviors and an evaluation pipeline for automated red teaming, runs 18 attacks against 33 LLMs/defenses, and proposes R2D2 adversarial training for robust refusal.

Problem

Automated red teaming methods are evaluated with disparate, non-comparable setups that lack breadth, standardized parameters, and robust classifiers, making it hard to rank attacks and defenses.

Approach

A standardized benchmark with diverse functional categories (standard, copyright, contextual, multimodal), fixed generation length (512 tokens), a validation/test split with held-out classifiers, and a fine-tuned Llama 2 13B judge distilled from GPT-4; plus R2D2, an efficient GCG-based adversarial training method using persistent test cases.

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
Add R2D2 adversarial training to Zephyr 7BZephyr 7B · GCG attacksASR (%): 31.8 -> 5.9Helped
Add R2D2 adversarial training to Zephyr 7BZephyr 7B · GCG attacksASR (%): 30.2 -> 5.9Helped
Add R2D2 adversarial trainingZephyr 7B · All evaluated attacksASRHelped
Add R2D2 adversarial trainingZephyr 7B · MT-Benchscore: 6.0 vs. 6.5Mixed
Use the HarmBench classifier instead of GPT-4Classifier evaluation on the validation set · Average across standard and contextual behaviorsagreement rate: 88.37 -> 93.19Helped
Use the HarmBench classifier instead of GPT-4Classifier evaluation on the validation set · Standard behaviorsagreement rate: 89.8 -> 94.53Helped
Use the HarmBench classifier instead of GPT-4Classifier evaluation on the validation set · Contextual behaviorsagreement rate: 85.5 -> 90.5Helped
Use the HarmBench classifier instead of GPT-4₍PAIR₎Classifier prequalification evaluation · Three prequalification sets, averageaccuracy: 89.6 -> 95.7Helped

Surprising findings

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: AdvBench TDC 2023 Red Teaming Track UltraChat

Benchmarks: HarmBench MT-Bench

Metrics: attack success rate agreement with human labels

Baselines: GCG PAIR TAP AutoDAN PAP Llama 2 7B Chat Llama 2 13B Chat

Builds on: GCG Zephyr AdvBench PAIR TAP

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy