Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06899v5
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 07:33:27 GMT
- Title: Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese
- Authors: Kexin Huang, Xiangyang Liu, Qianyu Guo, Tianxiang Sun, Jiawei Sun, Yaru Wang, Zeyang Zhou, Yixu Wang, Yan Teng, Xipeng Qiu, Yingchun Wang, Dahua Lin,
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 86.73527292670308
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) across various regions underscores the urgent need to evaluate their alignment with human values. Current benchmarks, however, fall short of effectively uncovering safety vulnerabilities in LLMs. Despite numerous models achieving high scores and 'topping the chart' in these evaluations, there is still a significant gap in LLMs' deeper alignment with human values and achieving genuine harmlessness. To this end, this paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames, which encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values such as harmony. Accordingly, we carefully design adversarial prompts that incorporate complex scenarios and jailbreaking methods, mostly with implicit malice. By prompting 17 mainstream LLMs, we obtain model responses and rigorously annotate them for detailed evaluation. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames, particularly in the safety and fairness dimensions. We also develop a lightweight specified scorer capable of scoring LLMs across multiple dimensions to efficiently evaluate new models on the benchmark. The complexity of Flames has far exceeded existing benchmarks, setting a new challenge for contemporary LLMs and highlighting the need for further alignment of LLMs. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/AIFlames/Flames.
Related papers
- 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) - 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) - OpenEval: Benchmarking Chinese LLMs across Capability, Alignment and Safety [37.07970624135514]
OpenEval is an evaluation testbed that benchmarks Chinese LLMs across capability, alignment and safety.
For capability assessment, we include 12 benchmark datasets to evaluate Chinese LLMs from 4 sub-dimensions: NLP tasks, disciplinary knowledge, commonsense reasoning and mathematical reasoning.
For alignment assessment, OpenEval contains 7 datasets that examines the bias, offensiveness and illegalness in the outputs yielded by Chinese LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-18T23:21:37Z) - State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation [28.307860675006545]
We comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances.
To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-31T22:21:36Z) - AlignBench: Benchmarking Chinese Alignment of Large Language Models [100.30878214336444]
We introduce AlignBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating Chinese Large Language Models' alignment.
Our benchmark employs a rule-calibrated multi-dimensional LLM-as-Judge with Chain-of-Thought to generate explanations and final ratings as evaluations.
We report AlignBench evaluated by CritiqueLLM, a dedicated Chinese evaluator LLM that recovers 95% of GPT-4's evaluation ability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-30T17:41:30Z) - Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well? [91.26543768665778]
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.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-10T08:01:23Z) - 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.