Utilize the Flow before Stepping into the Same River Twice: Certainty Represented Knowledge Flow for Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06913v2
• Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:15:41 GMT
• Title: Utilize the Flow before Stepping into the Same River Twice: Certainty Represented Knowledge Flow for Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning
• Authors: Runchuan Zhu, Zhipeng Ma, Jiang Wu, Junyuan Gao, Jiaqi Wang, Dahua Lin, Conghui He,
• Abstract summary: Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning (RAIT) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to refuse to answer unknown questions. RAIT modifies training samples based on the correctness of the initial LLM's response. This crude approach can cause LLMs to excessively refuse answering questions they could have correctly answered.
• Score: 68.57166425493283
• License:
• Abstract: Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning (RAIT) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to refuse to answer unknown questions. By modifying responses of unknown questions in the training data to refusal responses such as "I don't know", RAIT enhances the reliability of LLMs and reduces their hallucination. Generally, RAIT modifies training samples based on the correctness of the initial LLM's response. However, this crude approach can cause LLMs to excessively refuse answering questions they could have correctly answered, the problem we call over-refusal. In this paper, we explore two primary causes of over-refusal: Static conflict occurs when similar samples within the LLM's feature space receive differing supervision signals (original vs. modified "I don't know"). Dynamic conflict, on the other hand, emerges as the LLM's knowledge evolves during SFT, allowing it to answer questions that were previously unanswerable. Yet, these now-answerable training samples still retain the original "I don't know" supervision signals based on the initial LLM state, resulting in inconsistencies. These conflicts cause the trained LLM to misclassify known questions as unknown, resulting in over-refusal. To address this issue, we introduce Certainty Represented Knowledge Flow for Refusal-Aware Instructions Tuning (CRaFT). CRaFT centers on two main contributions: First, we additionally incorporate response certainty to selectively filter and modify data, reducing static conflicts. Second, we implement preliminary rehearsal training to characterize changes in the LLM's knowledge state, which helps mitigate dynamic conflicts during the fine-tuning process. We conducted extensive experiments on open-ended question answering and multiple-choice question task. Experiment results show that CRaFT can improve LLM's overall performance during the RAIT process. Source code and training data will be released at Github.

Related papers

• Are LLMs Aware that Some Questions are not Open-ended? [58.93124686141781]
  We study whether Large Language Models are aware that some questions have limited answers and need to respond more deterministically. The lack of question awareness in LLMs leads to two phenomena: (1) too casual to answer non-open-ended questions or (2) too boring to answer open-ended questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T06:07:00Z)
• From Distributional to Overton Pluralism: Investigating Large Language Model Alignment [82.99849359892112]
  We re-examine previously reported reductions in response diversity post-alignment. Our analysis suggests that an apparent drop in the diversity of responses is largely explained by quality control and information aggregation. Findings indicate that current alignment techniques capture but do not extend the useful subset of assistant-like base LLM behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:32:33Z)
• Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arena [23.264049073539663]
  Multiple-choice questions (MCQ) are frequently used to assess large language models (LLMs) LLMs may inherently favor certain answer choice IDs, such as A/B/C/D, due to inherent biases of priori unbalanced probabilities. This work aims to tackle these significant difficulties, and establish a new LLM evaluation benchmark through entirely open-style questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T17:59:47Z)
• PokeMQA: Programmable knowledge editing for Multi-hop Question Answering [46.80110170981976]
  Multi-hop question answering (MQA) is one of the challenging tasks to evaluate machine's comprehension and reasoning abilities. We propose a framework, Programmable knowledge editing for Multi-hop Question Answering (MQA) Specifically, we prompt LLMs to decompose knowledge-augmented multi-hop question, while interacting with a detached trainable scope detector to modulate LLMs behavior depending on external conflict signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-23T08:32:13Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• Knowing What LLMs DO NOT Know: A Simple Yet Effective Self-Detection Method [36.24876571343749]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Recent literature reveals that LLMs generate nonfactual responses intermittently. We propose a novel self-detection method to detect which questions that a LLM does not know that are prone to generate nonfactual results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:22:14Z)
• FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation [92.43001160060376]
  We study the factuality of large language models (LLMs) in the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge. We introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a diverse range of question and answer types. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to measure both correctness and hallucination. Motivated by these results, we present FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the performance of an LLM on FreshQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T00:04:12Z)
• RCOT: Detecting and Rectifying Factual Inconsistency in Reasoning by Reversing Chain-of-Thought [56.558892336235914]
  Reversing Chain-of-Thought (RCoT) is a novel method to improve large language models' reasoning abilities. RCoT automatically detects and rectifys factual inconsistency in generated solutions. We show that manually written fine-grained feedback can dramatically improve LLMs' reasoning abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T08:02:52Z)

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.