Assessing Hidden Risks of LLMs: An Empirical Study on Robustness, Consistency, and Credibility

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10235v4
• Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:32:36 GMT
• Title: Assessing Hidden Risks of LLMs: An Empirical Study on Robustness, Consistency, and Credibility
• Authors: Wentao Ye, Mingfeng Ou, Tianyi Li, Yipeng chen, Xuetao Ma, Yifan Yanggong, Sai Wu, Jie Fu, Gang Chen, Haobo Wang, Junbo Zhao
• Abstract summary: We conduct over a million queries to the mainstream large language models (LLMs) including ChatGPT, LLaMA, and OPT. We find that ChatGPT is still capable to yield the correct answer even when the input is polluted at an extreme level. We propose a novel index associated with a dataset that roughly decides the feasibility of using such data for LLM-involved evaluation.
• Score: 37.682136465784254
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The recent popularity of large language models (LLMs) has brought a significant impact to boundless fields, particularly through their open-ended ecosystem such as the APIs, open-sourced models, and plugins. However, with their widespread deployment, there is a general lack of research that thoroughly discusses and analyzes the potential risks concealed. In that case, we intend to conduct a preliminary but pioneering study covering the robustness, consistency, and credibility of LLMs systems. With most of the related literature in the era of LLM uncharted, we propose an automated workflow that copes with an upscaled number of queries/responses. Overall, we conduct over a million queries to the mainstream LLMs including ChatGPT, LLaMA, and OPT. Core to our workflow consists of a data primitive, followed by an automated interpreter that evaluates these LLMs under different adversarial metrical systems. As a result, we draw several, and perhaps unfortunate, conclusions that are quite uncommon from this trendy community. Briefly, they are: (i)-the minor but inevitable error occurrence in the user-generated query input may, by chance, cause the LLM to respond unexpectedly; (ii)-LLMs possess poor consistency when processing semantically similar query input. In addition, as a side finding, we find that ChatGPT is still capable to yield the correct answer even when the input is polluted at an extreme level. While this phenomenon demonstrates the powerful memorization of the LLMs, it raises serious concerns about using such data for LLM-involved evaluation in academic development. To deal with it, we propose a novel index associated with a dataset that roughly decides the feasibility of using such data for LLM-involved evaluation. Extensive empirical studies are tagged to support the aforementioned claims.

Related papers

• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• How Much are LLMs Contaminated? A Comprehensive Survey and the LLMSanitize Library [68.10605098856087]
  With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) in recent years, new opportunities are emerging, but also new challenges, and contamination is quickly becoming critical. Business applications and fundraising in AI have reached a scale at which a few percentage points gained on popular question-answering benchmarks could translate into dozens of millions of dollars. It is becoming harder and harder to keep track of the data that LLMs have seen; if not impossible with closed-source models like GPT-4 and Claude-3 not divulging any information on the training set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-31T14:32:02Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs on the Semantic Overlap Summarization Task [9.656095701778975]
  This paper comprehensively evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) on the Semantic Overlap Summarization (SOS) task. We report well-established metrics like ROUGE, BERTscore, and SEM-F1$ on two different datasets of alternative narratives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T20:33:50Z)
• Breaking the Silence: the Threats of Using LLMs in Software Engineering [12.368546216271382]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained considerable traction within the Software Engineering (SE) community. This paper initiates an open discussion on potential threats to the validity of LLM-based research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-13T11:02:19Z)
• LM-Polygraph: Uncertainty Estimation for Language Models [71.21409522341482]
  Uncertainty estimation (UE) methods are one path to safer, more responsible, and more effective use of large language models (LLMs) We introduce LM-Polygraph, a framework with implementations of a battery of state-of-the-art UE methods for LLMs in text generation tasks, with unified program interfaces in Python. It introduces an extendable benchmark for consistent evaluation of UE techniques by researchers, and a demo web application that enriches the standard chat dialog with confidence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T15:08:59Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
  We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.