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

• SG-Bench: Evaluating LLM Safety Generalization Across Diverse Tasks and Prompt Types [21.683010095703832]
  We develop a novel benchmark to assess the generalization of large language model (LLM) safety across various tasks and prompt types. This benchmark integrates both generative and discriminative evaluation tasks and includes extended data to examine the impact of prompt engineering and jailbreak on LLM safety. Our assessment reveals that most LLMs perform worse on discriminative tasks than generative ones, and are highly susceptible to prompts, indicating poor generalization in safety alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T11:47:01Z)
• LLM Detectors Still Fall Short of Real World: Case of LLM-Generated Short News-Like Posts [7.680851067579922]
  This paper focuses on an important setting in information operations -- short news-like posts generated by moderately sophisticated attackers. We demonstrate that existing LLM detectors, whether zero-shot or purpose-trained, are not ready for real-world use in that setting. A purpose-trained detector generalizing across LLMs and unseen attacks can be developed, but it fails to generalize to new human-written texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T06:55:13Z)
• Characterizing and Evaluating the Reliability of LLMs against Jailbreak Attacks [23.782566331783134]
  We focus on 10 cutting-edge jailbreak strategies across three categories, 1525 questions from 61 specific harmful categories, and 13 popular LLMs. We adopt multi-dimensional metrics such as Attack Success Rate (ASR), Toxicity Score, Fluency, Token Length, and Grammatical Errors to thoroughly assess the LLMs' outputs under jailbreak. We explore the relationships among the models, attack strategies, and types of harmful content, as well as the correlations between the evaluation metrics, which proves the validity of our multifaceted evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T01:58:03Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.