Beyond Single-Sentence Prompts: Upgrading Value Alignment Benchmarks with Dialogues and Stories

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.22115v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:31:37 GMT
• Title: Beyond Single-Sentence Prompts: Upgrading Value Alignment Benchmarks with Dialogues and Stories
• Authors: Yazhou Zhang, Qimeng Liu, Qiuchi Li, Peng Zhang, Jing Qin,
• Abstract summary: evaluating value alignment of large language models (LLMs) has traditionally relied on single-sentence adversarial prompts.<n>We propose an upgraded value alignment benchmark that moves beyond single-sentence prompts by incorporating multi-turn dialogues and narrative-based scenarios.
• Score: 14.605576275135522
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the value alignment of large language models (LLMs) has traditionally relied on single-sentence adversarial prompts, which directly probe models with ethically sensitive or controversial questions. However, with the rapid advancements in AI safety techniques, models have become increasingly adept at circumventing these straightforward tests, limiting their effectiveness in revealing underlying biases and ethical stances. To address this limitation, we propose an upgraded value alignment benchmark that moves beyond single-sentence prompts by incorporating multi-turn dialogues and narrative-based scenarios. This approach enhances the stealth and adversarial nature of the evaluation, making it more robust against superficial safeguards implemented in modern LLMs. We design and implement a dataset that includes conversational traps and ethically ambiguous storytelling, systematically assessing LLMs' responses in more nuanced and context-rich settings. Experimental results demonstrate that this enhanced methodology can effectively expose latent biases that remain undetected in traditional single-shot evaluations. Our findings highlight the necessity of contextual and dynamic testing for value alignment in LLMs, paving the way for more sophisticated and realistic assessments of AI ethics and safety.

Related papers

• Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations. Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation. We propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:36:56Z)
• Temporal Context Awareness: A Defense Framework Against Multi-turn Manipulation Attacks on Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly vulnerable to sophisticated multi-turn manipulation attacks.<n>This paper introduces the Temporal Context Awareness framework, a novel defense mechanism designed to address this challenge.<n>Preliminary evaluations on simulated adversarial scenarios demonstrate the framework's potential to identify subtle manipulation patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T22:30:17Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise.<n>We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• Adversarial Alignment for LLMs Requires Simpler, Reproducible, and More Measurable Objectives [52.863024096759816]
  Misaligned research objectives have hindered progress in adversarial robustness research over the past decade.<n>We argue that realigned objectives are necessary for meaningful progress in adversarial alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T15:28:40Z)
• Measuring the Robustness of Reference-Free Dialogue Evaluation Systems [12.332146893333952]
  We present a benchmark for evaluating the robustness of reference-free dialogue metrics against four categories of adversarial attacks.<n>We analyze metrics such as DialogRPT, UniEval, and PromptEval across grounded and ungrounded datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-12T06:41:52Z)
• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks.<n>We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• SelfPrompt: Autonomously Evaluating LLM Robustness via Domain-Constrained Knowledge Guidelines and Refined Adversarial Prompts [0.6291443816903801]
  This paper introduces a novel framework designed to autonomously evaluate the robustness of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method generates descriptive sentences from domain-constrained knowledge graph triplets to formulate adversarial prompts.<n>This self-evaluation mechanism allows the LLM to evaluate its robustness without the need for external benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-01T10:58:53Z)
• Con-ReCall: Detecting Pre-training Data in LLMs via Contrastive Decoding [118.75567341513897]
  Existing methods typically analyze target text in isolation or solely with non-member contexts. We propose Con-ReCall, a novel approach that leverages the asymmetric distributional shifts induced by member and non-member contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T09:10:38Z)
• Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form Text [12.879551933541345]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating human-like conversations. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE are inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T16:01:45Z)
• Towards Effective Evaluations and Comparisons for LLM Unlearning Methods [97.2995389188179]
  This paper seeks to refine the evaluation of machine unlearning for large language models. It addresses two key challenges -- the robustness of evaluation metrics and the trade-offs between competing goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T14:41:00Z)
• KIEval: A Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models [53.84677081899392]
  KIEval is a Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation framework for large language models. It incorporates an LLM-powered "interactor" role for the first time to accomplish a dynamic contamination-resilient evaluation. Extensive experiments on seven leading LLMs across five datasets validate KIEval's effectiveness and generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T01:30:39Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

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.