Understanding Knowledge Drift in LLMs through Misinformation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07085v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 08:11:16 GMT
• Title: Understanding Knowledge Drift in LLMs through Misinformation
• Authors: Alina Fastowski, Gjergji Kasneci,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized numerous applications, making them an integral part of our digital ecosystem. We analyze the susceptibility of state-of-the-art LLMs to factual inaccuracies when they encounter false information in a QnA scenario. Our experiments reveal that an LLM's uncertainty can increase up to 56.6% when the question is answered incorrectly.
• Score: 11.605377799885238
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized numerous applications, making them an integral part of our digital ecosystem. However, their reliability becomes critical, especially when these models are exposed to misinformation. We primarily analyze the susceptibility of state-of-the-art LLMs to factual inaccuracies when they encounter false information in a QnA scenario, an issue that can lead to a phenomenon we refer to as *knowledge drift*, which significantly undermines the trustworthiness of these models. We evaluate the factuality and the uncertainty of the models' responses relying on Entropy, Perplexity, and Token Probability metrics. Our experiments reveal that an LLM's uncertainty can increase up to 56.6% when the question is answered incorrectly due to the exposure to false information. At the same time, repeated exposure to the same false information can decrease the models uncertainty again (-52.8% w.r.t. the answers on the untainted prompts), potentially manipulating the underlying model's beliefs and introducing a drift from its original knowledge. These findings provide insights into LLMs' robustness and vulnerability to adversarial inputs, paving the way for developing more reliable LLM applications across various domains. The code is available at https://github.com/afastowski/knowledge_drift.

Related papers

• LLMs as Repositories of Factual Knowledge: Limitations and Solutions [1.7764955091415962]
  We study the appropriateness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as repositories of factual knowledge. We evaluate their reliability in responding to time-sensitive factual questions. We propose "ENtity-Aware Fine-tuning" (ENAF) to improve the model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-22T10:16:53Z)
• Are LLMs Really Not Knowledgable? Mining the Submerged Knowledge in LLMs' Memory [15.986679553468989]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise as potential knowledge bases. LLMs often struggle with question-answering tasks and are prone to hallucinations. We develop SkipUnsure, a method to improve answer accuracy by leveraging detected but unexpressed knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T10:29:18Z)
• How Susceptible are LLMs to Influence in Prompts? [6.644673474240519]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are highly sensitive to prompts, including additional context provided therein. We study how an LLM's response to multiple-choice questions changes when the prompt includes a prediction and explanation from another model. Our findings reveal that models are strongly influenced, and when explanations are provided they are swayed irrespective of the quality of the explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T17:40:52Z)
• 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)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established. This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt. We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• 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)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities. If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information. To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know [13.939511057660013]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into decision-making processes. To earn human trust, LLMs must be well calibrated so that they can accurately assess and communicate the likelihood of their predictions being correct. Here we explore the calibration gap, which refers to the difference between human confidence in LLM-generated answers and the models' actual confidence, and the discrimination gap, which reflects how well humans and models can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T22:21:04Z)
• RECALL: A Benchmark for LLMs Robustness against External Counterfactual Knowledge [69.79676144482792]
  This study aims to evaluate the ability of LLMs to distinguish reliable information from external knowledge. Our benchmark consists of two tasks, Question Answering and Text Generation, and for each task, we provide models with a context containing counterfactual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T13:24:19Z)
• Improving the Reliability of Large Language Models by Leveraging Uncertainty-Aware In-Context Learning [76.98542249776257]
  Large-scale language models often face the challenge of "hallucination" We introduce an uncertainty-aware in-context learning framework to empower the model to enhance or reject its output in response to uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T12:06:53Z)

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.