Are You Human? An Adversarial Benchmark to Expose LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09569v1
• Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:33:50 GMT
• Title: Are You Human? An Adversarial Benchmark to Expose LLMs
• Authors: Gilad Gressel, Rahul Pankajakshan, Yisroel Mirsky,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated an alarming ability to impersonate humans in conversation. We evaluate text-based prompts designed as challenges to expose LLM imposters in real-time.
• Score: 2.6528263069045126
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated an alarming ability to impersonate humans in conversation, raising concerns about their potential misuse in scams and deception. Humans have a right to know if they are conversing to an LLM. We evaluate text-based prompts designed as challenges to expose LLM imposters in real-time. To this end we compile and release an open-source benchmark dataset that includes 'implicit challenges' that exploit an LLM's instruction-following mechanism to cause role deviation, and 'exlicit challenges' that test an LLM's ability to perform simple tasks typically easy for humans but difficult for LLMs. Our evaluation of 9 leading models from the LMSYS leaderboard revealed that explicit challenges successfully detected LLMs in 78.4% of cases, while implicit challenges were effective in 22.9% of instances. User studies validate the real-world applicability of our methods, with humans outperforming LLMs on explicit challenges (78% vs 22% success rate). Our framework unexpectedly revealed that many study participants were using LLMs to complete tasks, demonstrating its effectiveness in detecting both AI impostors and human misuse of AI tools. This work addresses the critical need for reliable, real-time LLM detection methods in high-stakes conversations.

Related papers

• SpecTool: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs [77.79172008184415]
  SpecTool is a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks. We show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs. Researchers can use the analysis and insights from SPECTOOL to guide their error mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T18:56:22Z)
• LLM The Genius Paradox: A Linguistic and Math Expert's Struggle with Simple Word-based Counting Problems [28.72485319617863]
  LLMs struggle with some basic tasks that humans find trivial to handle, e.g., counting the number of character r's in the wordstrawberry. We measure transferability of advanced mathematical and coding reasoning capabilities from specialized LLMs to simple counting tasks. Compared with strategies such as finetuning and in-context learning, we show that engaging reasoning is the most robust and efficient way to help LLMs better perceive tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T04:17:16Z)
• Tokenization Matters! Degrading Large Language Models through Challenging Their Tokenization [12.885866125783618]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to produce inaccurate responses to specific queries. We construct an adversarial dataset, named as $textbfADT (Adrial dataset for Tokenizer)$ to challenge LLMs' tokenization. Our empirical results reveal that our ADT is highly effective on challenging the tokenization of leading LLMs, including GPT-4o, Llama-3, Qwen2.5-max and so on.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T11:39:59Z)
• Toward Self-Improvement of LLMs via Imagination, Searching, and Criticizing [56.75702900542643]
  We introduce AlphaLLM for the self-improvements of Large Language Models. It integrates Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with LLMs to establish a self-improving loop. Our experimental results show that AlphaLLM significantly enhances the performance of LLMs without additional annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T15:21:34Z)
• Adversarial Math Word Problem Generation [6.92510069380188]
  We propose a new paradigm for ensuring fair evaluation of large language models (LLMs) We generate adversarial examples which preserve the structure and difficulty of the original questions aimed for assessment, but are unsolvable by LLMs. We conduct experiments on various open- and closed-source LLMs, quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrating that our method significantly degrades their math problem-solving ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T22:07:52Z)
• Small Models, Big Insights: Leveraging Slim Proxy Models To Decide When and What to Retrieve for LLMs [60.40396361115776]
  This paper introduces a novel collaborative approach, namely SlimPLM, that detects missing knowledge in large language models (LLMs) with a slim proxy model. We employ a proxy model which has far fewer parameters, and take its answers as answers. Heuristic answers are then utilized to predict the knowledge required to answer the user question, as well as the known and unknown knowledge within the LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T11:11:08Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• TRACE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Continual Learning in Large Language Models [52.734140807634624]
  Aligned large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional capabilities in task-solving, following instructions, and ensuring safety. Existing continual learning benchmarks lack sufficient challenge for leading aligned LLMs. We introduce TRACE, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate continual learning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T16:38:49Z)
• 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 Model Is Not a Good Few-shot Information Extractor, but a Good Reranker for Hard Samples! [43.51393135075126]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made remarkable strides in various tasks. We show that current advanced LLMs consistently exhibit inferior performance, higher latency, and increased budget requirements compared to fine-tuned SLMs. We propose an adaptive filter-then-rerank paradigm to combine the strengths of LLMs and SLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T12:20:13Z)

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.