Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Battling Misinformation: An Empirical Study on Adversarial Factuality in Open-Source Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.10690 v1 pith:4PBVZVVG submitted 2025-03-12 cs.CL cs.CR

classification cs.CLcs.CR
keywords adversarialconfidencellamamodelsperformanceadversaryanalysisattacks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Adversarial factuality refers to the deliberate insertion of misinformation into input prompts by an adversary, characterized by varying levels of expressed confidence. In this study, we systematically evaluate the performance of several open-source large language models (LLMs) when exposed to such adversarial inputs. Three tiers of adversarial confidence are considered: strongly confident, moderately confident, and limited confidence. Our analysis encompasses eight LLMs: LLaMA 3.1 (8B), Phi 3 (3.8B), Qwen 2.5 (7B), Deepseek-v2 (16B), Gemma2 (9B), Falcon (7B), Mistrallite (7B), and LLaVA (7B). Empirical results indicate that LLaMA 3.1 (8B) exhibits a robust capability in detecting adversarial inputs, whereas Falcon (7B) shows comparatively lower performance. Notably, for the majority of the models, detection success improves as the adversary's confidence decreases; however, this trend is reversed for LLaMA 3.1 (8B) and Phi 3 (3.8B), where a reduction in adversarial confidence corresponds with diminished detection performance. Further analysis of the queries that elicited the highest and lowest rates of successful attacks reveals that adversarial attacks are more effective when targeting less commonly referenced or obscure information.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Helpful Agent Meets Deceptive Judge: Understanding Vulnerabilities in Agentic Workflows

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM agents frequently switch correct answers after one round of misleading feedback, and the new WAFER-QA benchmark measures this with web-backed critiques.

Pith tools