{"ID":2860775,"CreatedAt":"2026-06-01T04:54:23.091178241Z","UpdatedAt":"2026-06-01T04:54:23.091178241Z","DeletedAt":null,"paper_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02712","arxiv_id":"2510.02712","title":"Time-To-Inconsistency: A Survival Analysis of Large Language Model Robustness to Adversarial Attacks","abstract":"Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized conversational AI, yet their robustness in extended multi-turn dialogues remains poorly understood. Existing evaluation frameworks focus on static benchmarks and single-turn assessments, failing to capture the temporal dynamics of conversational degradation that characterize real-world interactions. In this work, we present a large-scale survival analysis of conversational robustness, modeling failure as a time-to-event process over 36,951 turns from 9 state-of-the-art LLMs on the MT-Consistency benchmark. Our framework combines Cox proportional hazards, Accelerated Failure Time (AFT), and Random Survival Forest models with simple semantic drift features. We find that abrupt prompt-to-prompt semantic drift sharply increases the hazard of inconsistency, whereas cumulative drift is counterintuitively \\emph{protective}, suggesting adaptation in conversations that survive multiple shifts. AFT models with model-drift interactions achieve the best combination of discrimination and calibration, and proportional hazards checks reveal systematic violations for key drift covariates, explaining the limitations of Cox-style modeling in this setting. Finally, we show that a lightweight AFT model can be turned into a turn-level risk monitor that flags most failing conversations several turns before the first inconsistent answer while keeping false alerts modest. These results establish survival analysis as a powerful paradigm for evaluating multi-turn robustness and for designing practical safeguards for conversational AI systems.","short_abstract":"Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized conversational AI, yet their robustness in extended multi-turn dialogues remains poorly understood. Existing evaluation frameworks focus on static benchmarks and single-turn assessments, failing to capture the temporal dynamics of conversational degradation that characte...","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02712","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.02712v4","authors":"[\"Yubo Li\",\"Ramayya Krishnan\",\"Rema Padman\"]","published":"2025-10-03T04:26:10Z","proceeding":"cs.CL","tasks":"[\"cs.CL\",\"cs.AI\",\"cs.LG\"]","methods":"[\"Large Language Model\",\"Language Model\"]","has_code":false}