BeHonest: Benchmarking Honesty in Large Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13261v3
- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 18:29:58 GMT
- Title: BeHonest: Benchmarking Honesty in Large Language Models
- Authors: Steffi Chern, Zhulin Hu, Yuqing Yang, Ethan Chern, Yuan Guo, Jiahe Jin, Binjie Wang, Pengfei Liu,
- Abstract summary: We introduce BeHonest, a pioneering benchmark specifically designed to assess honesty in Large Language Models.
BeHonest evaluates three essential aspects of honesty: awareness of knowledge boundaries, avoidance of deceit, and consistency in responses.
Our findings indicate that there is still significant room for improvement in the honesty of LLMs.
- Score: 23.192389530727713
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Previous works on Large Language Models (LLMs) have mainly focused on evaluating their helpfulness or harmlessness. However, honesty, another crucial alignment criterion, has received relatively less attention. Dishonest behaviors in LLMs, such as spreading misinformation and defrauding users, present severe risks that intensify as these models approach superintelligent levels. Enhancing honesty in LLMs addresses critical limitations and helps uncover latent capabilities that are not readily expressed. This underscores the urgent need for reliable methods and benchmarks to effectively ensure and evaluate the honesty of LLMs. In this paper, we introduce BeHonest, a pioneering benchmark specifically designed to assess honesty in LLMs comprehensively. BeHonest evaluates three essential aspects of honesty: awareness of knowledge boundaries, avoidance of deceit, and consistency in responses. Building on this foundation, we designed 10 scenarios to evaluate and analyze 9 popular LLMs on the market, including both closed-source and open-source models from different model families with varied model sizes. Our findings indicate that there is still significant room for improvement in the honesty of LLMs. We encourage the AI community to prioritize honesty alignment in these models, which can harness their full potential to benefit society while preventing them from causing harm through deception or inconsistency. Our benchmark and code can be found at: \url{https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/BeHonest}.
Related papers
- A Survey on the Honesty of Large Language Models [115.8458596738659]
Honesty is a fundamental principle for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values.
Despite promising, current LLMs still exhibit significant dishonest behaviors.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-27T14:34:54Z) - 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) - To Know or Not To Know? Analyzing Self-Consistency of Large Language Models under Ambiguity [27.10502683001428]
This paper focuses on entity type ambiguity, analyzing the proficiency and consistency of state-of-the-art LLMs in applying factual knowledge when prompted with ambiguous entities.
Experiments reveal that LLMs struggle with choosing the correct entity reading, achieving an average accuracy of only 85%, and as low as 75% with underspecified prompts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-24T09:48:48Z) - 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) - TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models [446.5640421311468]
This paper introduces TrustLLM, a comprehensive study of trustworthiness in large language models (LLMs)
We first propose a set of principles for trustworthy LLMs that span eight different dimensions.
Based on these principles, we establish a benchmark across six dimensions including truthfulness, safety, fairness, robustness, privacy, and machine ethics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-10T22:07:21Z) - 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) - 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) - Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs [60.61002524947733]
Previous confidence elicitation methods rely on white-box access to internal model information or model fine-tuning.
This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of black-box approaches for uncertainty estimation.
We define a systematic framework with three components: prompting strategies for eliciting verbalized confidence, sampling methods for generating multiple responses, and aggregation techniques for computing consistency.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-22T17:31:44Z)
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.