Beyond Words: On Large Language Models Actionability in Mission-Critical Risk Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10273v5
• Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 22:28:37 GMT
• Title: Beyond Words: On Large Language Models Actionability in Mission-Critical Risk Analysis
• Authors: Matteo Esposito, Francesco Palagiano, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Davide Taibi,
• Abstract summary: Risk analysis principles are context-less. Risk analysis requires a vast knowledge of national and international regulations and standards. Large language models can quickly summarize information in less time than a human and can be fine-tuned to specific tasks.
• Score: 7.098487130130114
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Context. Risk analysis assesses potential risks in specific scenarios. Risk analysis principles are context-less; the same methodology can be applied to a risk connected to health and information technology security. Risk analysis requires a vast knowledge of national and international regulations and standards and is time and effort-intensive. A large language model can quickly summarize information in less time than a human and can be fine-tuned to specific tasks. Aim. Our empirical study aims to investigate the effectiveness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation and fine-tuned LLM in risk analysis. To our knowledge, no prior study has explored its capabilities in risk analysis. Method. We manually curated 193 unique scenarios leading to 1283 representative samples from over 50 mission-critical analyses archived by the industrial context team in the last five years. We compared the base GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models versus their Retrieval-Augmented Generation and fine-tuned counterparts. We employ two human experts as competitors of the models and three other human experts to review the models and the former human experts' analysis. The reviewers analyzed 5,000 scenario analyses. Results and Conclusions. Human experts demonstrated higher accuracy, but LLMs are quicker and more actionable. Moreover, our findings show that RAG-assisted LLMs have the lowest hallucination rates, effectively uncovering hidden risks and complementing human expertise. Thus, the choice of model depends on specific needs, with FTMs for accuracy, RAG for hidden risks discovery, and base models for comprehensiveness and actionability. Therefore, experts can leverage LLMs as an effective complementing companion in risk analysis within a condensed timeframe. They can also save costs by averting unnecessary expenses associated with implementing unwarranted countermeasures.

Related papers

• Effective Mitigations for Systemic Risks from General-Purpose AI [9.39718128736321]
  We surveyed 76 experts whose expertise spans AI safety; critical infrastructure; democratic processes; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear risks (CBRN); and discrimination and bias. We find that a broad range of risk mitigation measures are perceived as effective in reducing various systemic risks and technically feasible by domain experts. Three mitigation measures stand out: safety incident reports and security information sharing, third-party pre-deployment model audits, and pre-deployment risk assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T22:39:25Z)
• Navigating the Risks: A Survey of Security, Privacy, and Ethics Threats in LLM-Based Agents [67.07177243654485]
  This survey collects and analyzes the different threats faced by large language models-based agents. We identify six key features of LLM-based agents, based on which we summarize the current research progress. We select four representative agents as case studies to analyze the risks they may face in practical use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T15:40:04Z)
• Quantifying Risk Propensities of Large Language Models: Ethical Focus and Bias Detection through Role-Play [0.43512163406552007]
  As Large Language Models (LLMs) become more prevalent, concerns about their safety, ethics, and potential biases have risen. This study innovatively applies the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale from cognitive science to LLMs. We propose a novel Ethical Decision-Making Risk Attitude Scale (EDRAS) to assess LLMs' ethical risk attitudes in depth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-26T15:55:21Z)
• Risks and NLP Design: A Case Study on Procedural Document QA [52.557503571760215]
  We argue that clearer assessments of risks and harms to users will be possible when we specialize the analysis to more concrete applications and their plausible users. We conduct a risk-oriented error analysis that could then inform the design of a future system to be deployed with lower risk of harm and better performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T17:23:43Z)
• CRiskEval: A Chinese Multi-Level Risk Evaluation Benchmark Dataset for Large Language Models [46.93425758722059]
  CRiskEval is a Chinese dataset meticulously designed for gauging the risk proclivities inherent in large language models (LLMs) We define a new risk taxonomy with 7 types of frontier risks and 4 safety levels, including extremely hazardous,moderately hazardous, neutral and safe. The dataset consists of 14,888 questions that simulate scenarios related to predefined 7 types of frontier risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T08:52:24Z)
• ALI-Agent: Assessing LLMs' Alignment with Human Values via Agent-based Evaluation [48.54271457765236]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can elicit unintended and even harmful content when misaligned with human values. Current evaluation benchmarks predominantly employ expert-designed contextual scenarios to assess how well LLMs align with human values. We propose ALI-Agent, an evaluation framework that leverages the autonomous abilities of LLM-powered agents to conduct in-depth and adaptive alignment assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T02:57:42Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Preliminary Security Risk Analysis: A Mission-Critical Case Study [0.0]
  The speed and accuracy of human experts in PSRA significantly impact response time. No prior study has explored the capabilities of fine-tuned models (FTM) in PSRA. Our approach has proven successful in reducing errors in PSRA, hastening security risk detection, and minimizing false positives and negatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-23T07:59:30Z)
• Risk and Response in Large Language Models: Evaluating Key Threat Categories [6.436286493151731]
  This paper explores the pressing issue of risk assessment in Large Language Models (LLMs) By utilizing the Anthropic Red-team dataset, we analyze major risk categories, including Information Hazards, Malicious Uses, and Discrimination/Hateful content. Our findings indicate that LLMs tend to consider Information Hazards less harmful, a finding confirmed by a specially developed regression model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T06:46:40Z)
• Prioritizing Safeguarding Over Autonomy: Risks of LLM Agents for Science [65.77763092833348]
  Intelligent agents powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial promise in autonomously conducting experiments and facilitating scientific discoveries across various disciplines. While their capabilities are promising, these agents also introduce novel vulnerabilities that demand careful consideration for safety. This paper conducts a thorough examination of vulnerabilities in LLM-based agents within scientific domains, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse and emphasizing the need for safety measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:54:07Z)

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.