Against The Achilles' Heel: A Survey on Red Teaming for Generative Models

Published 11/27/2024 by Lizhi Lin, Honglin Mu, Zenan Zhai, Minghan Wang, Yuxia Wang, Renxi Wang, Junjie Gao, Yixuan Zhang, Wanxiang Che, Timothy Baldwin and 2 others

Overview

Survey paper examining red teaming techniques for generative AI models
Analyzes methods to identify and mitigate harmful model behaviors
Reviews automated and manual testing approaches
Discusses challenges in evaluating model safety and security
Examines effectiveness of current red teaming strategies

2023 red teaming paper types: attack, defense, benchmark, phenomenon, survey.

1/4

Original caption: Figure 1: Distribution of red teaming papers by type from 2023 onwards. Red represents attack papers discussing new attack strategies; blue for defense papers; purple for benchmark papers, which propose new benchmarks to investigate metrics; yellow marks phenomenon papers that uncover new phenomena related to safety of generative models; and orange is for survey papers.

Jailbreak approaches categorized by attack type.

1/2

Attack Category	Sub-category	Key Methods/Techniques
Completion Compliance	Affirmative Suffixes	Using phrases like ”Sure, here is” or ”Hello” Wei et al. (2023a)
		Long suffixes mimicking assistant responses Rao et al. (2023)
		Response inclination analysis Du et al. (2023b)

Context Switching	Using separators (===, \n)	Schulhoff et al. (2023)
		Semantic separators and HouYi framework Liu et al. (2023g)
		Task switching techniques Inie et al. (2023)
In-context Learning	Chain of utterances	Bhardwaj & Poria (2023b)
		In-context attacks Wei et al. (2023b)
		Contextual interaction attacks Cheng et al. (2024)
Instruction Indirection	Input Euphemisms	Veiled expressions Xu et al. (2023d)
		Socratic questioning Inie et al. (2023)
		Altered sentence structures Ding et al. (2023)

Output Constraints	Style constraints (Wikipedia, JSON)	Wei et al. (2023a)
		Task Constraints & safety behaviors Fu et al. (2023b)
		Refusal suppression Schulhoff et al. (2023)
Virtual Simulation	DeepInception scenario simulation	Li et al. (2023e)
		Program execution simulation Liu et al. (2023h)
		Payload splitting Kang et al. (2023)
Generalization Glide	Languages	Multilingual attack strategies Wang et al. (2023c)
		Low-resource language exploitation Deng et al. (2023d)
		Cross-lingual safety analysis Shen et al. (2024b)
	Ciphers	Word substitution (ROT13, Caesar) Yuan et al. (2023b)
	ASCII art encoding Jiang et al. (2024a)
	SelfCipher & auto-obfuscation Wei et al. (2023a)
Personification	Role play & persona modulation	Shah et al. (2023)
		Psychological manipulation Zeng et al. (2024a)
		Privilege escalation Liu et al. (2023h)
Model Manipulation	Decoding Manipulation	Temperature & sampling manipulation Huang et al. (2023c)
		Probability control Zhang et al. (2023b)
		Weak-to-strong transfer Zhao et al. (2024d)
	Activations Manipulation	Interference vectors Wang & Shu (2023)
		Embedding manipulation Li et al. (2024f)
		Automatic prompt optimization Chao et al. (2023)
	Model Fine-tuning	Small dataset fine-tuning	Yang et al. (2023b)
		Parameter-efficient tuning Lermen et al. (2023)
		PII disclosure risks Chen et al. (2023b)

Original caption: Table 1: Summary of jailbreak approaches organized by attack categories.

Search Method Summary
Method	Template	Search Goal / Evaluator	Search Operation
Prompt Searchers — Direct Goal
Puzzler Chang et al. (2024)	✓	Prompted LLM	Composition
Prompt Searchers — Proxy Goal
TrojLLM Xue et al. (2023)	✗	RL Reward Function	RL

``` **Explanation of Improvements and Best Practices:** * **Semantic HTML:** Using `` and `` is crucial for semantic structure, aiding accessibility tools and readability by humans and machines. * **Reduced IDs:** IDs are kept for elements where it's truly needed (for example, to link to a specific cell from another part of the document), rather than overusing them for every cell. * **Concise Classes:** Keeping classes consistent for similar elements improves maintainability. * **Clearer Structure:** The improved formatting enhances readability. Grouping related search methods under headings (e.g., "Prompt Searchers — Direct Goal") makes the table much easier to scan. **Important Considerations:** * **Data Consistency:** Ensure that the data in the table is formatted correctly for each row. * **Accessibility:** While the provided classes suggest styling, you should prioritize accessible table presentation by making sure the data is conveyed without relying solely on visual styling for interpretation. Consider alt text for images in the table, if appropriate, for assistive technologies. * **Table Structure:** The provided table example has only a few rows. In a real-world table with many rows, you should design the structure to be as easily maintainable as possible to accommodate more data. Remember to replace the placeholders (``) with the actual table rows. This is a significantly improved version that avoids unnecessary IDs, correctly utilizes table structure, and enhances readability.

Original caption: Table 2: List of methods that can be framed as searching problems.

Plain English Explanation

Red teaming is like stress-testing a building - experts try to find weaknesses before they become real problems. For AI models that generate text and images, red teaming involves deliberately trying to make the AI misbehave or produce harmful content.

Red teaming for generative models has become crucial as these systems become more powerful and widely used. Think of it like quality control at a factory - testers need to check for defects before products reach consumers.

The process combines human expertise with automated testing. Human testers try creative ways to trick the AI, while automated systems run thousands of test cases looking for problems. This two-pronged approach helps catch both obvious and subtle issues.

Key Findings

Manual red teaming by human experts remains essential despite automation advances
Automated testing tools can effectively scale testing but miss nuanced problems
Current evaluation metrics need improvement to better measure real-world risks
Threat modeling frameworks help systematically identify potential risks
Combination of automated and manual testing produces best results

Technical Explanation

The paper reviews multiple red teaming architectures including adversarial attacks, prompt injection, and model extraction attempts. Automated red teaming typically employs reinforcement learning to discover model vulnerabilities.

Testing methodologies fall into three categories:

Static analysis of model weights and architecture
Dynamic testing through input manipulation
Hybrid approaches combining multiple techniques

Success metrics include attack success rate, coverage of test cases, and time to discover vulnerabilities. The research demonstrates automated tools can achieve broader coverage while human testers find more sophisticated attack vectors.

Critical Analysis

Several limitations exist in current approaches:

Difficulty measuring real-world impact of discovered vulnerabilities
Challenge of keeping pace with rapid model development
Risk of automated tools missing context-dependent issues
Need for better standardization of testing protocols

The paper could benefit from more discussion of defensive techniques and mitigation strategies. Additionally, more research is needed on testing generative models' emergent capabilities.

Conclusion

Red teaming remains vital for safe deployment of generative AI systems. The field requires continued development of both automated and manual testing approaches. Future work should focus on improving evaluation metrics and standardizing testing protocols across the industry.

Success will require ongoing collaboration between AI researchers, security experts, and domain specialists to ensure comprehensive safety testing of generative models before deployment.

Full paper

Loading PDF viewer...

Read original: arXiv:2404.00629

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

Attack Atlas: A Practitioner's Perspective on Challenges and Pitfalls in Red Teaming GenAI

Ambrish Rawat, Stefan Schoepf, Giulio Zizzo, Giandomenico Cornacchia, Muhammad Zaid Hameed, Kieran Fraser, Erik Miehling, Beat Buesser, Elizabeth M. Daly, Mark Purcell, Prasanna Sattigeri, Pin-Yu Chen, Kush R. Varshney

As generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), become increasingly integrated into production applications, new attack surfaces and vulnerabilities emerge and put a focus on adversarial threats in natural language and multi-modal systems. Red-teaming has gained importance in proactively identifying weaknesses in these systems, while blue-teaming works to protect against such adversarial attacks. Despite growing academic interest in adversarial risks for generative AI, there is limited guidance tailored for practitioners to assess and mitigate these challenges in real-world environments. To address this, our contributions include: (1) a practical examination of red- and blue-teaming strategies for securing generative AI, (2) identification of key challenges and open questions in defense development and evaluation, and (3) the Attack Atlas, an intuitive framework that brings a practical approach to analyzing single-turn input attacks, placing it at the forefront for practitioners. This work aims to bridge the gap between academic insights and practical security measures for the protection of generative AI systems.

9/25/2024

📈

Operationalizing a Threat Model for Red-Teaming Large Language Models (LLMs)

Apurv Verma, Satyapriya Krishna, Sebastian Gehrmann, Madhavan Seshadri, Anu Pradhan, Tom Ault, Leslie Barrett, David Rabinowitz, John Doucette, NhatHai Phan

Creating secure and resilient applications with large language models (LLM) requires anticipating, adjusting to, and countering unforeseen threats. Red-teaming has emerged as a critical technique for identifying vulnerabilities in real-world LLM implementations. This paper presents a detailed threat model and provides a systematization of knowledge (SoK) of red-teaming attacks on LLMs. We develop a taxonomy of attacks based on the stages of the LLM development and deployment process and extract various insights from previous research. In addition, we compile methods for defense and practical red-teaming strategies for practitioners. By delineating prominent attack motifs and shedding light on various entry points, this paper provides a framework for improving the security and robustness of LLM-based systems.

7/23/2024

Holistic Automated Red Teaming for Large Language Models through Top-Down Test Case Generation and Multi-turn Interaction

Jinchuan Zhang, Yan Zhou, Yaxin Liu, Ziming Li, Songlin Hu

Automated red teaming is an effective method for identifying misaligned behaviors in large language models (LLMs). Existing approaches, however, often focus primarily on improving attack success rates while overlooking the need for comprehensive test case coverage. Additionally, most of these methods are limited to single-turn red teaming, failing to capture the multi-turn dynamics of real-world human-machine interactions. To overcome these limitations, we propose HARM (Holistic Automated Red teaMing), which scales up the diversity of test cases using a top-down approach based on an extensible, fine-grained risk taxonomy. Our method also leverages a novel fine-tuning strategy and reinforcement learning techniques to facilitate multi-turn adversarial probing in a human-like manner. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework enables a more systematic understanding of model vulnerabilities and offers more targeted guidance for the alignment process.

9/26/2024

🏋️

Red-Teaming for Generative AI: Silver Bullet or Security Theater?

Michael Feffer, Anusha Sinha, Wesley Hanwen Deng, Zachary C. Lipton, Hoda Heidari

In response to rising concerns surrounding the safety, security, and trustworthiness of Generative AI (GenAI) models, practitioners and regulators alike have pointed to AI red-teaming as a key component of their strategies for identifying and mitigating these risks. However, despite AI red-teaming's central role in policy discussions and corporate messaging, significant questions remain about what precisely it means, what role it can play in regulation, and how it relates to conventional red-teaming practices as originally conceived in the field of cybersecurity. In this work, we identify recent cases of red-teaming activities in the AI industry and conduct an extensive survey of relevant research literature to characterize the scope, structure, and criteria for AI red-teaming practices. Our analysis reveals that prior methods and practices of AI red-teaming diverge along several axes, including the purpose of the activity (which is often vague), the artifact under evaluation, the setting in which the activity is conducted (e.g., actors, resources, and methods), and the resulting decisions it informs (e.g., reporting, disclosure, and mitigation). In light of our findings, we argue that while red-teaming may be a valuable big-tent idea for characterizing GenAI harm mitigations, and that industry may effectively apply red-teaming and other strategies behind closed doors to safeguard AI, gestures towards red-teaming (based on public definitions) as a panacea for every possible risk verge on security theater. To move toward a more robust toolbox of evaluations for generative AI, we synthesize our recommendations into a question bank meant to guide and scaffold future AI red-teaming practices.

8/29/2024