Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Large-scale pre-trained language models have achieved tremendous success across a wide range of natural language understanding (NLU) tasks, even surpassing human performance. However, recent studies reveal that the robustness of these models can be challenged by carefully crafted textual adversarial examples. While several individual datasets have been proposed to evaluate model robustness, a principled and comprehensive benchmark is still missing. In this paper, we present Adversarial GLUE (AdvGLUE), a new multi-task benchmark to quantitatively and thoroughly explore and evaluate the vulnerabilities of modern large-scale language models under various types of adversarial attacks. In particular, we systematically apply 14 textual adversarial attack methods to GLUE tasks to construct AdvGLUE, which is further validated by humans for reliable annotations. Our findings are summarized as follows. (i) Most existing adversarial attack algorithms are prone to generating invalid or ambiguous adversarial examples, with around 90% of them either changing the original semantic meanings or misleading human annotators as well. Therefore, we perform a careful filtering process to curate a high-quality benchmark. (ii) All the language models and robust training methods we tested perform poorly on AdvGLUE, with scores lagging far behind the benign accuracy. We hope our work will motivate the development of new adversarial attacks that are more stealthy and semantic-preserving, as well as new robust language models against sophisticated adversarial attacks. AdvGLUE is available at https://adversarialglue.github.io.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some methods modify evaluation samples while preserving their semantics; others generate new samples with altered semantics based on original questions, using advanced LLMs.
“Some methods modify evaluation samples while preserving their semantics (Zhu et al., 2024b;a; 2023b; Li et al., 2024c; Wang et al., 2021; Xia et al., 2024; Haimes et al., 2024; Zheng et al., 2024). Others generate new samples with altered semantics based on original questions, using advanced LLMs (Ying et al., 2024).”
From The Emperor's New Clothes in Benchmarking? A Rigorous Examination of Mitigation Strategies for LLM Benchmark Data Contamination (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2021
Cites
Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLP
Kiela, D., Bartolo, M., Nie, Y., Kaushik, D., Geiger, A., Wu, Z., Vidgen, B., Prasad, G., Singh, A., Ringshia, P., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.324 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 2,842 · see citing works
“By summarizing and analyzing existing efforts on LLMs evaluation, we may identify the current success and failure cases of LLMs, derive new trends for evaluation protocols, and most importantly, propose new challenges and opportunities for future research.”
BackgroundMethodCan large language models reason about medical questions?
Liévin, V., Hother, C. E., Motzfeldt, A. G., & Winther, O. (2024) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2024.100943 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
“28 Therefore, deploying LLMs into sensitive areas such as healthcare must be operated with great care.”
BackgroundFeng, S., Park, C. Y., Liu, Y., & Tsvetkov, Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.656 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context
Shi, F., Chen, X., Misra, K., Scales, N., Dohan, D., Chi, E., Schärli, N., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.00093 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
“…input perturbations for natural language tasks, including model-agnostic input transformations (Liang et al., 2022; Ravichan-der et al., 2022, inter alia ) and adversarial example generation against individual models (Jia & Liang, 2017; Shi et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodState of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation
Mizrahi, M., Kaplan, G., Malkin, D., Dror, R., Shahaf, D., & Stanovsky, G. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00681 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Measure and Improve Robustness in NLP Models: A Survey
Wang, X., Wang, H., & Yang, D. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.339 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Shortcut Learning of Large Language Models in Natural Language Understanding
Du, M., He, F., Zou, N., Tao, D., & Hu, X. (2024) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3596490 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Data Governance in the Age of Large-Scale Data-Driven Language Technology
Jernite, Y., Nguyen, H., Biderman, S., Rogers, A., Masoud, M., Danchev, V., Tan, S., Luccioni, A. S., Subramani, N., Johnson, I., et al. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3534637 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“There has also been an increased focus on analyzing other dimensions of data quality and stewardship [102, 107, 121, 123], with several noteworthy initiatives aiming to document both existing [9, 20, 30, 43], and newly developed [16, 60, 136] resources.”
BackgroundReCode: Robustness Evaluation of Code Generation Models
Wang, S., Li, Z., Qian, H., Yang, C., Wang, Z., Shang, M., Kumar, V., Tan, S., Ray, B., Bhatia, P., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.773 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationZhuo, T. Y., Li, Z., Huang, Y., Shiri, F., Wang, W., Haffari, G., & Li, Y.-F. (2023) · Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.77 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
M4GT-Bench: Evaluation Benchmark for Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detection
Wang, Y., Mansurov, J., Ivanov, P., Su, J., Shelmanov, A., Tsvigun, A., Mohammed Afzal, O., Mahmoud, T., Puccetti, G., Arnold, T., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.218 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Sun, Y., Wang, H., Li, D., Wang, G., & Zhang, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16402
“…et al., 2024a), syntactic modification (Zhu et al., 2023b; 2024b;a), synonym replacement (Zhu et al., 2023b; 2024b;a), ty-pographical perturbation (Wang et al., 2021), translation (Chinese) (Li et al., 2024c), translation (French), back-translation (Zhu et al., 2023b), choice paraphrasing (Zhu et…”
Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models
Zou, A., Wang, Z., Carlini, N., Nasr, M., Kolter, J. Z., & Fredrikson, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15043 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wang, B., Xu, C., Wang, S., Gan, Z., Cheng, Y., Gao, J., Awadallah, A. H., & Li, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Zhejiang University (CN)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2111.02840
- OpenAlex
- W3208206463
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 13
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1910100)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- adversarial examples, language model robustness, multi-task benchmark, GLUE benchmark, adversarial attacks, robustness analysis, semantic preservation, robust training, natural language understanding
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
