Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.05915v3
• Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 03:32:14 GMT
• Title: Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well?
• Authors: Yixu Wang, Yan Teng, Kexin Huang, Chengqi Lyu, Songyang Zhang, Wenwei Zhang, Xingjun Ma, Yu-Gang Jiang, Yu Qiao, Yingchun Wang,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization.
• Score: 91.26543768665778
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The growing awareness of safety concerns in large language models (LLMs) has sparked considerable interest in the evaluation of safety. This study investigates an under-explored issue about the evaluation of LLMs, namely the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization. That is, LLM only remembers the answer style for open-ended safety questions, which makes it unable to solve other forms of safety tests. We refer to this phenomenon as fake alignment and construct a comparative benchmark to empirically verify its existence in LLMs. We introduce a Fake alIgNment Evaluation (FINE) framework and two novel metrics--Consistency Score (CS) and Consistent Safety Score (CSS), which jointly assess two complementary forms of evaluation to quantify fake alignment and obtain corrected performance estimation. Applying FINE to 14 widely-used LLMs reveals several models with purported safety are poorly aligned in practice. Subsequently, we found that multiple-choice format data can also be used as high-quality contrast distillation-based fine-tuning data, which can strongly improve the alignment consistency of LLMs with minimal fine-tuning overhead. For data and code, see https://github.com/AIFlames/Fake-Alignment.

Related papers

• From Distributional to Overton Pluralism: Investigating Large Language Model Alignment [82.99849359892112]
  We re-examine previously reported reductions in response diversity post-alignment. Our analysis suggests that an apparent drop in the diversity of responses is largely explained by quality control and information aggregation. Findings indicate that current alignment techniques capture but do not extend the useful subset of assistant-like base LLM behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:32:33Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal Behaviors [64.9938658716425]
  Existing evaluations of large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests face three limitations. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs for evaluation, which can be expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia [59.96425443250666]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs) In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T20:13:42Z)
• Mitigating Boundary Ambiguity and Inherent Bias for Text Classification in the Era of Large Language Models [24.085614720512744]
  This study shows that large language models (LLMs) are vulnerable to changes in the number and arrangement of options in text classification. Key bottleneck arises from ambiguous decision boundaries and inherent biases towards specific tokens and positions. Our approach is grounded in the empirical observation that pairwise comparisons can effectively alleviate boundary ambiguity and inherent bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T06:53:19Z)
• LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and Benchmarks [17.522223535347905]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been suggested for use in automated vulnerability repair, but benchmarks showing they can consistently identify security-related bugs are lacking. We develop SecLLMHolmes, a fully automated evaluation framework that performs the most detailed investigation to date on whether LLMs can reliably identify and reason about security-related bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-19T20:19:43Z)
• Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese [86.73527292670308]
  This paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames. It encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T17:18:21Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.