Aminat Adebiyi

Guangxuan Xu, Paulina Toro Isaza, Moshi Li et al.

To understand a narrative, it is essential to comprehend the temporal event flows, especially those associated with main characters; however, this can be challenging with lengthy and unstructured narrative texts. To address this, we introduce NECE, an open-access, document-level toolkit that automatically extracts and aligns narrative events in the temporal order of their occurrence. Through extensive evaluations, we show the high quality of the NECE toolkit and demonstrates its downstream application in analyzing narrative bias regarding gender. We also openly discuss the shortcomings of the current approach, and potential of leveraging generative models in future works. Lastly the NECE toolkit includes both a Python library and a user-friendly web interface, which offer equal access to professionals and layman audience alike, to visualize event chain, obtain narrative flows, or study narrative bias.

Tiago Machado, Maysa Malfiza Garcia de Macedo, Rogerio Abreu de Paula et al.

This work aims to investigate how different Large Language Models (LLMs) alignment methods affect the models' responses to prompt attacks. We selected open source models based on the most common alignment methods, namely, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF). We conducted a systematic analysis using statistical methods to verify how sensitive the Attack Success Rate (ASR) is when we apply variations to prompts designed to elicit inappropriate content from LLMs. Our results show that even small prompt modifications can significantly change the Attack Success Rate (ASR) according to the statistical tests we run, making the models more or less susceptible to types of attack. Critically, our results demonstrate that running existing 'attack benchmarks' alone may not be sufficient to elicit all possible vulnerabilities of both models and alignment methods. This paper thus contributes to ongoing efforts on model attack evaluation by means of systematic and statistically-based analyses of the different alignment methods and how sensitive their ASR is to prompt variation.

Heloisa Candello, Muneeza Azmat, Uma Sushmitha Gunturi et al.

With the rapid uptake of generative AI, investigating human perceptions of generated responses has become crucial. A major challenge is their `aptitude' for hallucinating and generating harmful contents. Despite major efforts for implementing guardrails, human perceptions of these mitigation strategies are largely unknown. We conducted a mixed-method experiment for evaluating the responses of a mitigation strategy across multiple-dimensions: faithfulness, fairness, harm-removal capacity, and relevance. In a within-subject study design, 57 participants assessed the responses under two conditions: harmful response plus its mitigation and solely mitigated response. Results revealed that participants' native language, AI work experience, and annotation familiarity significantly influenced evaluations. Participants showed high sensitivity to linguistic and contextual attributes, penalizing minor grammar errors while rewarding preserved semantic contexts. This contrasts with how language is often treated in the quantitative evaluation of LLMs. We also introduced new metrics for training and evaluating mitigation strategies and insights for human-AI evaluation studies.

Muneeza Azmat, Momin Abbas, Maysa Malfiza Garcia de Macedo et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into real-world applications, ensuring their outputs align with human values and safety standards has become critical. The field has developed diverse alignment approaches including traditional fine-tuning methods (RLHF, instruction tuning), post-hoc correction systems, and inference-time interventions, each with distinct advantages and limitations. However, the lack of unified evaluation frameworks makes it difficult to systematically compare these paradigms and guide deployment decisions. This paper introduces a multi-dimensional evaluation of alignment techniques for LLMs, a comprehensive evaluation framework that provides a systematic comparison across all major alignment paradigms. Our framework assesses methods along four key dimensions: alignment detection, alignment quality, computational efficiency, and robustness. Through experiments across diverse base models and alignment strategies, we demonstrate the utility of our framework in identifying strengths and limitations of current state-of-the-art models, providing valuable insights for future research directions.