Measuring Moral Inconsistencies in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01719v3
• Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 06:35:29 GMT
• Title: Measuring Moral Inconsistencies in Large Language Models
• Authors: Vamshi Krishna Bonagiri, Sreeram Vennam, Manas Gaur, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru
• Abstract summary: A Large Language Model (LLM) is considered consistent if semantically equivalent prompts produce semantically equivalent responses. We show that even state-of-the-art LLMs are highly inconsistent in their generations, questioning their reliability. We propose a novel information-theoretic measure called Semantic Graph Entropy (SGE) to measure the consistency of an LLM in moral scenarios.
• Score: 16.47371312298185
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A Large Language Model (LLM) is considered consistent if semantically equivalent prompts produce semantically equivalent responses. Despite recent advancements showcasing the impressive capabilities of LLMs in conversational systems, we show that even state-of-the-art LLMs are highly inconsistent in their generations, questioning their reliability. Prior research has tried to measure this with task-specific accuracy. However, this approach is unsuitable for moral scenarios, such as the trolley problem, with no "correct" answer. To address this issue, we propose a novel information-theoretic measure called Semantic Graph Entropy (SGE) to measure the consistency of an LLM in moral scenarios. We leverage "Rules of Thumb" (RoTs) to explain a model's decision-making strategies and further enhance our metric. Compared to existing consistency metrics, SGE correlates better with human judgments across five LLMs. In the future, we aim to investigate the root causes of LLM inconsistencies and propose improvements.

Related papers

• 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)
• MoralBench: Moral Evaluation of LLMs [34.43699121838648]
  This paper introduces a novel benchmark designed to measure and compare the moral reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We present the first comprehensive dataset specifically curated to probe the moral dimensions of LLM outputs. Our methodology involves a multi-faceted approach, combining quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from ethics scholars to ensure a thorough evaluation of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T18:15:01Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• SaGE: Evaluating Moral Consistency in Large Language Models [15.079905222871071]
  We show that even state-of-the-art Large Language Models are morally inconsistent in their generations. We propose an information-theoretic measure called Semantic Graph Entropy (SaGE) to measure a model's moral consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T11:23:21Z)
• Alignment for Honesty [105.72465407518325]
  Recent research has made significant strides in aligning large language models (LLMs) with helpfulness and harmlessness. In this paper, we argue for the importance of alignment for emphhonesty, ensuring that LLMs proactively refuse to answer questions when they lack knowledge. We address these challenges by first establishing a precise problem definition and defining honesty'' inspired by the Analects of Confucius.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T06:10:42Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• The ART of LLM Refinement: Ask, Refine, and Trust [85.75059530612882]
  We propose a reasoning with refinement objective called ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust. It asks necessary questions to decide when an LLM should refine its output. It achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:26:32Z)
• Semantic Consistency for Assuring Reliability of Large Language Models [9.876355290198639]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across various natural language tasks. We introduce a general measure of semantic consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the performance of various LLMs. We propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance semantic consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-17T18:11:33Z)
• 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)
• Assessing Hidden Risks of LLMs: An Empirical Study on Robustness, Consistency, and Credibility [37.682136465784254]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T15:44:51Z)

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.