A Comparative Analysis on Ethical Benchmarking in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19753v1
• Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 05:05:21 GMT
• Title: A Comparative Analysis on Ethical Benchmarking in Large Language Models
• Authors: Kira Sam, Raja Vavekanand,
• Abstract summary: This work contributes to the field of Machine Ethics (ME) benchmarking, which develops tests to assess whether intelligent systems accurately represent human values and act accordingly. We identify three major issues with current ME benchmarks: limited ecological validity due to unrealistic ethical dilemmas, unstructured question generation without clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a lack of scalability due to reliance on human annotations. We introduce two new ME benchmarks: the Triage Benchmark and the Medical Law (MedLaw) Benchmark, both featuring real-world ethical dilemmas from the medical domain.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: This work contributes to the field of Machine Ethics (ME) benchmarking, which develops tests to assess whether intelligent systems accurately represent human values and act accordingly. We identify three major issues with current ME benchmarks: limited ecological validity due to unrealistic ethical dilemmas, unstructured question generation without clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a lack of scalability due to reliance on human annotations. Moreover, benchmarks often fail to include sufficient syntactic variations, reducing the robustness of findings. To address these gaps, we introduce two new ME benchmarks: the Triage Benchmark and the Medical Law (MedLaw) Benchmark, both featuring real-world ethical dilemmas from the medical domain. The MedLaw Benchmark, fully AI-generated, offers a scalable alternative. We also introduce context perturbations in our benchmarks to assess models' worst-case performance. Our findings reveal that ethics prompting does not always improve decision-making. Furthermore, context perturbations not only significantly reduce model performance but can also reverse error patterns and shift relative performance rankings. Lastly, our comparison of worst-case performance suggests that general model capability does not always predict strong ethical decision-making. We argue that ME benchmarks must approximate real-world scenarios and worst-case performance to ensure robust evaluation.

Related papers

• RMB: Comprehensively Benchmarking Reward Models in LLM Alignment [44.84304822376291]
  Reward models (RMs) guide the alignment of large language models (LLMs) We propose RMB, a comprehensive RM benchmark that covers over 49 real-world scenarios. Based on our benchmark, we conduct extensive analysis on the state-of-the-art RMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T16:06:54Z)
• TRIAGE: Ethical Benchmarking of AI Models Through Mass Casualty Simulations [4.294623208722234]
  We present the TRIAGE Benchmark, a novel machine ethics (ME) benchmark that tests LLMs' ability to make ethical decisions during mass casualty incidents. It uses real-world ethical dilemmas with clear solutions designed by medical professionals, offering a more realistic alternative to annotation-based benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T15:06:12Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Efficient Benchmarking of Language Models [22.696230279151166]
  We present the problem of Efficient Benchmarking, namely, intelligently reducing the costs of LM evaluation without compromising reliability. Using the HELM benchmark as a test case, we investigate how different benchmark design choices affect the computation-reliability trade-off. We propose an evaluation algorithm, that, when applied to the HELM benchmark, leads to dramatic cost savings with minimal loss of benchmark reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T17:59:30Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
• What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding? [30.888416756627155]
  We lay out four criteria that we argue NLU benchmarks should meet. Restoring a healthy evaluation ecosystem will require significant progress in the design of benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-05T20:36:11Z)

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.