J&H: Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models Under Knowledge-Injection Attacks in Legal Domain
As the scale and capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) increase, their applications in knowledge-intensive fields such as legal domain have garnered widespread attention. However, it remains doubtful whether these LLMs make judgments based on domain knowledge for reasoning. If LLMs base their judgments solely on specific words or patterns, rather than on the underlying logic of the language, the ''LLM-as-judges'' paradigm poses substantial risks in the real-world applications. To address this question, we propose a method of legal knowledge injection attacks for robustness testing, thereby inferring whether LLMs have learned legal knowledge and reasoning logic. In this paper, we propose J&H: an evaluation framework for detecting the robustness of LLMs under knowledge injection attacks in the legal domain. The aim of the framework is to explore whether LLMs perform deductive reasoning when accomplishing legal tasks. To further this aim, we have attacked each part of the reasoning logic underlying these tasks (major premise, minor premise, and conclusion generation). We have collected mistakes that legal experts might make in judicial decisions in the real world, such as typos, legal synonyms, inaccurate external legal statutes retrieval. However, in real legal practice, legal experts tend to overlook these mistakes and make judgments based on logic. However, when faced with these errors, LLMs are likely to be misled by typographical errors and may not utilize logic in their judgments. We conducted knowledge injection attacks on existing general and domain-specific LLMs. Current LLMs are not robust against the attacks employed in our experiments. In addition we propose and compare several methods to enhance the knowledge robustness of LLMs.
Code (1)
Methods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
SelfPrompt: Autonomously Evaluating LLM Robustness via Domain-Constrained Knowledge Guidelines and Refined Adversarial Prompts
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…
DescriptiveKnowledge GraphsLarge Language Models Can be Lazy Learners: Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning
Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown great potential for in-context learning, where LLMs learn a new task simply by conditioning on a few input-label pairs (prompts). Despite their potential, our understandin…
In-Context LearningTruth or Sophistry? LoFa: A Benchmark for LLM Robustness Against Logical Fallacies
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong semantic capabilities, yet their resilience to manipulative linguistic patterns such as logical fallacies remains underexplored. Prior work has primarily examined whether LLMs …
Logical FallaciesBeyond Preserved Accuracy: Evaluating Loyalty and Robustness of BERT Compression
Recent studies on compression of pretrained language models (e.g., BERT) usually use preserved accuracy as the metric for evaluation. In this paper, we propose two new metrics, label loyalty and probability loyalty that …
Knowledge DistillationQuantizationHellaSwag-Pro: A Large-Scale Bilingual Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs in Commonsense Reasoning
Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in commonsense reasoning; however, some variations in questions can trigger incorrect responses. Do these models truly understand commonsense knowledge, or …
HellaSwag