Verbosity $\neq$ Veracity: Demystify Verbosity Compensation Behavior of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07858v2
• Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2024 22:11:27 GMT
• Title: Verbosity $\neq$ Veracity: Demystify Verbosity Compensation Behavior of Large Language Models
• Authors: Yusen Zhang, Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Rui Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We discover an understudied type of undesirable behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs) We term Verbosity Compensation (VC) as similar to the hesitation behavior of humans under uncertainty. We propose a simple yet effective cascade algorithm that replaces verbose responses with the other model-generated responses.
• Score: 8.846200844870767
• License:
• Abstract: Although Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated their strong capabilities in various tasks, recent work has revealed LLMs also exhibit undesirable behaviors, such as hallucination and toxicity, limiting their reliability and broader adoption. In this paper, we discover an understudied type of undesirable behavior of LLMs, which we term Verbosity Compensation (VC), similar to the hesitation behavior of humans under uncertainty, where they respond with excessive words such as repeating questions, introducing ambiguity, or providing excessive enumeration. We present the first work that defines and analyzes Verbosity Compensation, explores its causes, and proposes a simple mitigating approach. Our experiments, conducted on five datasets of knowledge and reasoning-based QA tasks with 14 newly developed LLMs, reveal three conclusions. 1) We reveal a pervasive presence of VC across all models and all datasets. Notably, GPT-4 exhibits a VC frequency of 50.40%. 2) We reveal the large performance gap between verbose and concise responses, with a notable difference of 27.61% on the Qasper dataset. We also demonstrate that this difference does not naturally diminish as LLM capability increases. Both 1) and 2) highlight the urgent need to mitigate the frequency of VC behavior and disentangle verbosity with veracity. We propose a simple yet effective cascade algorithm that replaces the verbose responses with the other model-generated responses. The results show that our approach effectively alleviates the VC of the Mistral model from 63.81% to 16.16% on the Qasper dataset. 3) We also find that verbose responses exhibit higher uncertainty across all five datasets, suggesting a strong connection between verbosity and model uncertainty. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/VerbosityLLM.

Related papers

• 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)
• A Debate-Driven Experiment on LLM Hallucinations and Accuracy [7.821303946741665]
  This study investigates the phenomenon of hallucination in large language models (LLMs) Multiple instances of GPT-4o-Mini models engage in a debate-like interaction prompted with questions from the TruthfulQA dataset. One model is deliberately instructed to generate plausible but false answers while the other models are asked to respond truthfully.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T11:41:27Z)
• Optimizing Language Model's Reasoning Abilities with Weak Supervision [48.60598455782159]
  We present textscPuzzleBen, a weakly supervised benchmark that comprises 25,147 complex questions, answers, and human-generated rationales. A unique aspect of our dataset is the inclusion of 10,000 unannotated questions, enabling us to explore utilizing fewer supersized data to boost LLMs' inference capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:39:15Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• Are You Sure? Challenging LLMs Leads to Performance Drops in The FlipFlop Experiment [82.60594940370919]
  We propose the FlipFlop experiment to study the multi-turn behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs) We show that models flip their answers on average 46% of the time and that all models see a deterioration of accuracy between their first and final prediction, with an average drop of 17% (the FlipFlop effect) We conduct finetuning experiments on an open-source LLM and find that finetuning on synthetically created data can mitigate - reducing performance deterioration by 60% - but not resolve sycophantic behavior entirely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T23:40:22Z)
• Rephrase, Augment, Reason: Visual Grounding of Questions for Vision-Language Models [59.05769810380928]
  Rephrase, Augment and Reason (RepARe) is a gradient-free framework that extracts salient details about the image using the underlying vision-language model. We show that RepARe can result in a 3.85% (absolute) increase in zero-shot accuracy on VQAv2, 6.41%, and 7.94% points increase on A-OKVQA, and VizWiz respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T16:57:57Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Can Large Language Models Infer Causation from Correlation? [104.96351414570239]
  We test the pure causal inference skills of large language models (LLMs) We formulate a novel task Corr2Cause, which takes a set of correlational statements and determines the causal relationship between the variables. We show that these models achieve almost close to random performance on the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T12:09:15Z)

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.