Illuminating Blind Spots of Language Models with Targeted Agent-in-the-Loop Synthetic Data

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17860v3
• Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 15:59:19 GMT
• Title: Illuminating Blind Spots of Language Models with Targeted Agent-in-the-Loop Synthetic Data
• Authors: Philip Lippmann, Matthijs T. J. Spaan, Jie Yang,
• Abstract summary: Language models (LMs) have achieved impressive accuracy across a variety of tasks but remain vulnerable to high-confidence misclassifications (UUs) UUs cluster into blind spots in the feature space, leading to significant risks in high-stakes applications. We propose a novel approach to address blind spot mitigation through the use of intelligent agents as teachers to characterize UU-type errors.
• Score: 9.982616173090264
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Language models (LMs) have achieved impressive accuracy across a variety of tasks but remain vulnerable to high-confidence misclassifications, also referred to as unknown unknowns (UUs). These UUs cluster into blind spots in the feature space, leading to significant risks in high-stakes applications. This is particularly relevant for smaller, lightweight LMs that are more susceptible to such errors. While the identification of UUs has been extensively studied, their mitigation remains an open challenge, including how to use identified UUs to eliminate unseen blind spots. In this work, we propose a novel approach to address blind spot mitigation through the use of intelligent agents -- either humans or large LMs -- as teachers to characterize UU-type errors. By leveraging the generalization capabilities of intelligent agents, we identify patterns in high-confidence misclassifications and use them to generate targeted synthetic samples to improve model robustness and reduce blind spots. We conduct an extensive evaluation of our method on three classification tasks and demonstrate its effectiveness in reducing the number of UUs, all while maintaining a similar level of accuracy. We find that the effectiveness of human computation has a high ceiling but is highly dependent on familiarity with the underlying task. Moreover, the cost gap between humans and LMs surpasses an order of magnitude, as LMs attain human-like generalization and generation performance while being more scalable.

Related papers

• Towards Robust LLMs: an Adversarial Robustness Measurement Framework [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to adversarial perturbations, undermining their reliability in high-stakes applications. We adapt the Robustness Measurement and Assessment framework to quantify LLM resilience against adversarial inputs without requiring access to model parameters. Our work provides a systematic methodology to assess LLM robustness, advancing the development of more reliable language models for real-world deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T16:36:19Z)
• SINdex: Semantic INconsistency Index for Hallucination Detection in LLMs [2.805517909463769]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse domains, yet they are prone to generating factually incorrect outputs. We introduce a novel and scalable uncertainty-based semantic clustering framework for automated hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T23:25:19Z)
• Palisade -- Prompt Injection Detection Framework [0.9620910657090188]
  Large Language Models are vulnerable to malicious prompt injection attacks. This paper proposes a novel NLP based approach for prompt injection detection. It emphasizes accuracy and optimization through a layered input screening process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T15:47:03Z)
• Generative LLM Powered Conversational AI Application for Personalized Risk Assessment: A Case Study in COVID-19 [6.367429891237191]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in various natural language tasks. This work demonstrates a new LLM-powered disease risk assessment approach via streaming human-AI conversation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T13:55:13Z)
• Detecting and Understanding Vulnerabilities in Language Models via Mechanistic Interpretability [44.99833362998488]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance across a wide range of tasks. LLMs in particular are known to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks, where an imperceptible change to the input can mislead the output of the model. We propose a method, based on Mechanistic Interpretability (MI) techniques, to guide this process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T09:55:34Z)
• 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)
• AutoDetect: Towards a Unified Framework for Automated Weakness Detection in Large Language Models [95.09157454599605]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful, but they still exhibit significant but subtle weaknesses. Traditional benchmarking approaches cannot thoroughly pinpoint specific model deficiencies. We introduce a unified framework, AutoDetect, to automatically expose weaknesses in LLMs across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:16:45Z)
• Language Model Cascades: Token-level uncertainty and beyond [65.38515344964647]
  Recent advances in language models (LMs) have led to significant improvements in quality on complex NLP tasks. Cascading offers a simple strategy to achieve more favorable cost-quality tradeoffs. We show that incorporating token-level uncertainty through learned post-hoc deferral rules can significantly outperform simple aggregation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T21:02:48Z)
• Assessing biomedical knowledge robustness in large language models by query-efficient sampling attacks [0.6282171844772422]
  An increasing depth of parametric domain knowledge in large language models (LLMs) is fueling their rapid deployment in real-world applications. The recent discovery of named entities as adversarial examples in natural language processing tasks raises questions about their potential impact on the knowledge robustness of pre-trained and finetuned LLMs. We developed an embedding-space attack based on powerscaled distance-weighted sampling to assess the robustness of their biomedical knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T09:29:38Z)
• Forcing Generative Models to Degenerate Ones: The Power of Data Poisoning Attacks [10.732558183444985]
  Malicious actors can covertly exploit large language models (LLMs) vulnerabilities through poisoning attacks aimed at generating undesirable outputs. This paper explores various poisoning techniques to assess their effectiveness across a range of generative tasks. We show that it is possible to successfully poison an LLM during the fine-tuning stage using as little as 1% of the total tuning data samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T23:26:06Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• 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)
• Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Models [86.02610674750345]
  Adversarial GLUE (AdvGLUE) is a new multi-task benchmark to explore and evaluate the vulnerabilities of modern large-scale language models under various types of adversarial attacks. We apply 14 adversarial attack methods to GLUE tasks to construct AdvGLUE, which is further validated by humans for reliable annotations. All the language models and robust training methods we tested perform poorly on AdvGLUE, with scores lagging far behind the benign accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-04T12:59:55Z)

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.