Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values and intents critically involves the use of human or AI feedback. While dense feedback annotations are expensive to acquire and integrate, sparse feedback presents a structural design choice between ratings (e.g., score Response A on a scale of 1-7) and rankings (e.g., is Response A better than Response B?). In this work, we analyze the effect of this design choice for the alignment and evaluation of LLMs. We uncover an inconsistency problem wherein the preferences inferred from ratings and rankings significantly disagree 60% for both human and AI annotators. Our subsequent analysis identifies various facets of annotator biases that explain this phenomena, such as human annotators would rate denser responses higher while preferring accuracy during pairwise judgments. To our surprise, we also observe that the choice of feedback protocol also has a significant effect on the evaluation of aligned LLMs. In particular, we find that LLMs that leverage rankings data for alignment (say model X) are preferred over those that leverage ratings data (say model Y), with a rank-based evaluation protocol (is X/Y's response better than reference response?) but not with a rating-based evaluation protocol (score Rank X/Y's response on a scale of 1-7). Our findings thus shed light on critical gaps in methods for evaluating the real-world utility of language models and their strong dependence on the feedback protocol used for alignment. Our code and data are available at //github.com/Hritikbansal/sparse_feedback.
相關內容
Without proper safeguards, large language models will readily follow malicious instructions and generate toxic content. This risk motivates safety efforts such as red-teaming and large-scale feedback learning, which aim to make models both helpful and harmless. However, there is a tension between these two objectives, since harmlessness requires models to refuse to comply with unsafe prompts, and thus not be helpful. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that some models may have struck a poor balance, so that even clearly safe prompts are refused if they use similar language to unsafe prompts or mention sensitive topics. In this paper, we introduce a new test suite called XSTest to identify such eXaggerated Safety behaviours in a systematic way. XSTest comprises 250 safe prompts across ten prompt types that well-calibrated models should not refuse to comply with, and 200 unsafe prompts as contrasts that models, for most applications, should refuse. We describe XSTest's creation and composition, and then use the test suite to highlight systematic failure modes in state-of-the-art language models as well as more general challenges in building safer language models.
In recent years, pre-trained large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable efficiency in achieving an inference-time few-shot learning capability known as in-context learning. However, existing literature has highlighted the sensitivity of this capability to the selection of few-shot demonstrations. Current understandings of the underlying mechanisms by which this capability arises from regular language model pretraining objectives remain disconnected from the real-world LLMs. This study aims to examine the in-context learning phenomenon through a Bayesian lens, viewing real-world LLMs as latent variable models. On this premise, we propose an algorithm to select optimal demonstrations from a set of annotated data with a small LM, and then directly generalize the selected demonstrations to larger LMs. We demonstrate significant improvement over baselines, averaged over eight GPT models on eight real-world text classification datasets. We also demonstrate the real-world usefulness of our algorithm on GSM8K, a math word problem dataset. Our empirical findings support our hypothesis that LLMs implicitly infer a latent variable containing task information.
Recently, Large language models (LLMs) with powerful general capabilities have been increasingly integrated into various Web applications, while undergoing alignment training to ensure that the generated content aligns with user intent and ethics. Unfortunately, they remain the risk of generating harmful content like hate speech and criminal activities in practical applications. Current approaches primarily rely on detecting, collecting, and training against harmful prompts to prevent such risks. However, they typically focused on the "superficial" harmful prompts with a solitary intent, ignoring composite attack instructions with multiple intentions that can easily elicit harmful content in real-world scenarios. In this paper, we introduce an innovative technique for obfuscating harmful instructions: Compositional Instruction Attacks (CIA), which refers to attacking by combination and encapsulation of multiple instructions. CIA hides harmful prompts within instructions of harmless intentions, making it impossible for the model to identify underlying malicious intentions. Furthermore, we implement two transformation methods, known as T-CIA and W-CIA, to automatically disguise harmful instructions as talking or writing tasks, making them appear harmless to LLMs. We evaluated CIA on GPT-4, ChatGPT, and ChatGLM2 with two safety assessment datasets and two harmful prompt datasets. It achieves an attack success rate of 95%+ on safety assessment datasets, and 83%+ for GPT-4, 91%+ for ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo backed) and ChatGLM2-6B on harmful prompt datasets. Our approach reveals the vulnerability of LLMs to such compositional instruction attacks that harbor underlying harmful intentions, contributing significantly to LLM security development. Warning: this paper may contain offensive or upsetting content!
Large language models (LLMs) represented by chartGPT have achieved profound applications and breakthroughs in various fields. This demonstrates that LLMs with hundreds of billions or trillions of parameters will continue to transform our daily lives. However, training LLMs with super-large-scale parameters requires even larger and high-performance GPU clusters and continuous training periods lasting for months. Due to the inevitable hardware and software failures in large clusters, maintaining large-scale training sessions lasting more than a week has become extremely challenging. A significant amount of time is spent on tasks such as checkpoint saving and recovery, task restart submissions, and task anomaly checks, greatly reducing the efficiency of effective training. To address these issues, a novel fault-tolerant large model training system has been proposed, which we named TRANSOM. In this work, we have designed three key components: the Training pipeline Automatic Fault Tolerance and Recovery Mechanism (TOL), the Training Task Multi-dimensional Metric Automatic Anomaly Detection System (TEE), and the Training Checkpoint Asynchronous Access Automatic Fault Tolerance and Recovery Technology (TCE). Our preliminary results indicate that TRANSOM significantly accelerates the efficiency of large-scale LLMs training on clusters. For instance, the pre-training time for GPT-3 with 175B parameters has been reduced by 28%, and the checkpoint storage and recovery performance has improved by a factor of 20.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance by following natural language instructions without fine-tuning them on domain-specific tasks and data. However, leveraging LLMs for domain-specific question answering suffers from severe limitations. The generated answer tends to hallucinate due to the training data collection time (when using off-the-shelf), complex user utterance and wrong retrieval (in retrieval-augmented generation). Furthermore, due to the lack of awareness about the domain and expected output, such LLMs may generate unexpected and unsafe answers that are not tailored to the target domain. In this paper, we propose CarExpert, an in-car retrieval-augmented conversational question-answering system leveraging LLMs for different tasks. Specifically, CarExpert employs LLMs to control the input, provide domain-specific documents to the extractive and generative answering components, and controls the output to ensure safe and domain-specific answers. A comprehensive empirical evaluation exhibits that CarExpert outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs in generating natural, safe and car-specific answers.
Despite efforts to align large language models (LLMs) with human values, widely-used LLMs such as GPT, Llama, Claude, and PaLM are susceptible to jailbreaking attacks, wherein an adversary fools a targeted LLM into generating objectionable content. To address this vulnerability, we propose SmoothLLM, the first algorithm designed to mitigate jailbreaking attacks on LLMs. Based on our finding that adversarially-generated prompts are brittle to character-level changes, our defense first randomly perturbs multiple copies of a given input prompt, and then aggregates the corresponding predictions to detect adversarial inputs. SmoothLLM reduces the attack success rate on numerous popular LLMs to below one percentage point, avoids unnecessary conservatism, and admits provable guarantees on attack mitigation. Moreover, our defense uses exponentially fewer queries than existing attacks and is compatible with any LLM.
Widely applied large language models (LLMs) can generate human-like content, raising concerns about the abuse of LLMs. Therefore, it is important to build strong AI-generated text (AIGT) detectors. Current works only consider document-level AIGT detection, therefore, in this paper, we first introduce a sentence-level detection challenge by synthesizing a dataset that contains documents that are polished with LLMs, that is, the documents contain sentences written by humans and sentences modified by LLMs. Then we propose \textbf{Seq}uence \textbf{X} (Check) \textbf{GPT}, a novel method that utilizes log probability lists from white-box LLMs as features for sentence-level AIGT detection. These features are composed like \textit{waves} in speech processing and cannot be studied by LLMs. Therefore, we build SeqXGPT based on convolution and self-attention networks. We test it in both sentence and document-level detection challenges. Experimental results show that previous methods struggle in solving sentence-level AIGT detection, while our method not only significantly surpasses baseline methods in both sentence and document-level detection challenges but also exhibits strong generalization capabilities.
Large language models (LLMs) have been used for diverse tasks in natural language processing (NLP), yet remain under-explored for task-oriented dialogue systems (TODS), especially for end-to-end TODS. We present InstructTODS, a novel off-the-shelf framework for zero-shot end-to-end task-oriented dialogue systems that can adapt to diverse domains without fine-tuning. By leveraging LLMs, InstructTODS generates a proxy belief state that seamlessly translates user intentions into dynamic queries for efficient interaction with any KB. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that InstructTODS achieves comparable performance to fully fine-tuned TODS in guiding dialogues to successful completion without prior knowledge or task-specific data. Furthermore, a rigorous human evaluation of end-to-end TODS shows that InstructTODS produces dialogue responses that notably outperform both the gold responses and the state-of-the-art TODS in terms of helpfulness, informativeness, and humanness. Moreover, the effectiveness of LLMs in TODS is further supported by our comprehensive evaluations on TODS subtasks: dialogue state tracking, intent classification, and response generation. Code and implementations could be found here //github.com/WillyHC22/InstructTODS/
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language processing. However, their internal mechanisms are still unclear and this lack of transparency poses unwanted risks for downstream applications. Therefore, understanding and explaining these models is crucial for elucidating their behaviors, limitations, and social impacts. In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy of explainability techniques and provide a structured overview of methods for explaining Transformer-based language models. We categorize techniques based on the training paradigms of LLMs: traditional fine-tuning-based paradigm and prompting-based paradigm. For each paradigm, we summarize the goals and dominant approaches for generating local explanations of individual predictions and global explanations of overall model knowledge. We also discuss metrics for evaluating generated explanations, and discuss how explanations can be leveraged to debug models and improve performance. Lastly, we examine key challenges and emerging opportunities for explanation techniques in the era of LLMs in comparison to conventional machine learning models.
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has substantially influenced natural language processing, demonstrating exceptional results across various tasks. In this study, we employ ``Introspective Tips" to facilitate LLMs in self-optimizing their decision-making. By introspectively examining trajectories, LLM refines its policy by generating succinct and valuable tips. Our method enhances the agent's performance in both few-shot and zero-shot learning situations by considering three essential scenarios: learning from the agent's past experiences, integrating expert demonstrations, and generalizing across diverse games. Importantly, we accomplish these improvements without fine-tuning the LLM parameters; rather, we adjust the prompt to generalize insights from the three aforementioned situations. Our framework not only supports but also emphasizes the advantage of employing LLM in in-contxt decision-making. Experiments involving over 100 games in TextWorld illustrate the superior performance of our approach.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191