-
WildTeaming at Scale: From In-the-Wild Jailbreaks to (Adversarially) Safer Language Models
Authors:
Liwei Jiang,
Kavel Rao,
Seungju Han,
Allyson Ettinger,
Faeze Brahman,
Sachin Kumar,
Niloofar Mireshghallah,
Ximing Lu,
Maarten Sap,
Ye** Choi,
Nouha Dziri
Abstract:
We introduce WildTeaming, an automatic LLM safety red-teaming framework that mines in-the-wild user-chatbot interactions to discover 5.7K unique clusters of novel jailbreak tactics, and then composes multiple tactics for systematic exploration of novel jailbreaks. Compared to prior work that performed red-teaming via recruited human workers, gradient-based optimization, or iterative revision with…
▽ More
We introduce WildTeaming, an automatic LLM safety red-teaming framework that mines in-the-wild user-chatbot interactions to discover 5.7K unique clusters of novel jailbreak tactics, and then composes multiple tactics for systematic exploration of novel jailbreaks. Compared to prior work that performed red-teaming via recruited human workers, gradient-based optimization, or iterative revision with LLMs, our work investigates jailbreaks from chatbot users who were not specifically instructed to break the system. WildTeaming reveals previously unidentified vulnerabilities of frontier LLMs, resulting in up to 4.6x more diverse and successful adversarial attacks compared to state-of-the-art jailbreak methods.
While many datasets exist for jailbreak evaluation, very few open-source datasets exist for jailbreak training, as safety training data has been closed even when model weights are open. With WildTeaming we create WildJailbreak, a large-scale open-source synthetic safety dataset with 262K vanilla (direct request) and adversarial (complex jailbreak) prompt-response pairs. To mitigate exaggerated safety behaviors, WildJailbreak provides two contrastive types of queries: 1) harmful queries (vanilla & adversarial) and 2) benign queries that resemble harmful queries in form but contain no harm. As WildJailbreak considerably upgrades the quality and scale of existing safety resources, it uniquely enables us to examine the scaling effects of data and the interplay of data properties and model capabilities during safety training. Through extensive experiments, we identify the training properties that enable an ideal balance of safety behaviors: appropriate safeguarding without over-refusal, effective handling of vanilla and adversarial queries, and minimal, if any, decrease in general capabilities. All components of WildJailbeak contribute to achieving balanced safety behaviors of models.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMs
Authors:
Seungju Han,
Kavel Rao,
Allyson Ettinger,
Liwei Jiang,
Bill Yuchen Lin,
Nathan Lambert,
Ye** Choi,
Nouha Dziri
Abstract:
We introduce WildGuard -- an open, light-weight moderation tool for LLM safety that achieves three goals: (1) identifying malicious intent in user prompts, (2) detecting safety risks of model responses, and (3) determining model refusal rate. Together, WildGuard serves the increasing needs for automatic safety moderation and evaluation of LLM interactions, providing a one-stop tool with enhanced a…
▽ More
We introduce WildGuard -- an open, light-weight moderation tool for LLM safety that achieves three goals: (1) identifying malicious intent in user prompts, (2) detecting safety risks of model responses, and (3) determining model refusal rate. Together, WildGuard serves the increasing needs for automatic safety moderation and evaluation of LLM interactions, providing a one-stop tool with enhanced accuracy and broad coverage across 13 risk categories. While existing open moderation tools such as Llama-Guard2 score reasonably well in classifying straightforward model interactions, they lag far behind a prompted GPT-4, especially in identifying adversarial jailbreaks and in evaluating models' refusals, a key measure for evaluating safety behaviors in model responses.
To address these challenges, we construct WildGuardMix, a large-scale and carefully balanced multi-task safety moderation dataset with 92K labeled examples that cover vanilla (direct) prompts and adversarial jailbreaks, paired with various refusal and compliance responses. WildGuardMix is a combination of WildGuardTrain, the training data of WildGuard, and WildGuardTest, a high-quality human-annotated moderation test set with 5K labeled items covering broad risk scenarios. Through extensive evaluations on WildGuardTest and ten existing public benchmarks, we show that WildGuard establishes state-of-the-art performance in open-source safety moderation across all the three tasks compared to ten strong existing open-source moderation models (e.g., up to 26.4% improvement on refusal detection). Importantly, WildGuard matches and sometimes exceeds GPT-4 performance (e.g., up to 3.9% improvement on prompt harmfulness identification). WildGuard serves as a highly effective safety moderator in an LLM interface, reducing the success rate of jailbreak attacks from 79.8% to 2.4%.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild
Authors:
Bill Yuchen Lin,
Yuntian Deng,
Khyathi Chandu,
Faeze Brahman,
Abhilasha Ravichander,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Nouha Dziri,
Ronan Le Bras,
Ye** Choi
Abstract:
We introduce WildBench, an automated evaluation framework designed to benchmark large language models (LLMs) using challenging, real-world user queries. WildBench consists of 1,024 tasks carefully selected from over one million human-chatbot conversation logs. For automated evaluation with WildBench, we have developed two metrics, WB-Reward and WB-Score, which are computable using advanced LLMs su…
▽ More
We introduce WildBench, an automated evaluation framework designed to benchmark large language models (LLMs) using challenging, real-world user queries. WildBench consists of 1,024 tasks carefully selected from over one million human-chatbot conversation logs. For automated evaluation with WildBench, we have developed two metrics, WB-Reward and WB-Score, which are computable using advanced LLMs such as GPT-4-turbo. WildBench evaluation uses task-specific checklists to evaluate model outputs systematically and provides structured explanations that justify the scores and comparisons, resulting in more reliable and interpretable automatic judgments. WB-Reward employs fine-grained pairwise comparisons between model responses, generating five potential outcomes: much better, slightly better, slightly worse, much worse, or a tie. Unlike previous evaluations that employed a single baseline model, we selected three baseline models at varying performance levels to ensure a comprehensive pairwise evaluation. Additionally, we propose a simple method to mitigate length bias, by converting outcomes of ``slightly better/worse'' to ``tie'' if the winner response exceeds the loser one by more than $K$ characters. WB-Score evaluates the quality of model outputs individually, making it a fast and cost-efficient evaluation metric. WildBench results demonstrate a strong correlation with the human-voted Elo ratings from Chatbot Arena on hard tasks. Specifically, WB-Reward achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.98 with top-ranking models. Additionally, WB-Score reaches 0.95, surpassing both ArenaHard's 0.91 and AlpacaEval2.0's 0.89 for length-controlled win rates, as well as the 0.87 for regular win rates.
△ Less
Submitted 7 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
CULTURE-GEN: Revealing Global Cultural Perception in Language Models through Natural Language Prompting
Authors:
Huihan Li,
Liwei Jiang,
Jena D. Huang,
Hyunwoo Kim,
Sebastin Santy,
Taylor Sorensen,
Bill Yuchen Lin,
Nouha Dziri,
Xiang Ren,
Ye** Choi
Abstract:
As the utilization of large language models (LLMs) has proliferated worldwide, it is crucial for them to have adequate knowledge and fair representation for diverse global cultures. In this work, we uncover culture perceptions of three SOTA models on 110 countries and regions on 8 culture-related topics through culture-conditioned generations, and extract symbols from these generations that are as…
▽ More
As the utilization of large language models (LLMs) has proliferated worldwide, it is crucial for them to have adequate knowledge and fair representation for diverse global cultures. In this work, we uncover culture perceptions of three SOTA models on 110 countries and regions on 8 culture-related topics through culture-conditioned generations, and extract symbols from these generations that are associated to each culture by the LLM. We discover that culture-conditioned generation consist of linguistic "markers" that distinguish marginalized cultures apart from default cultures. We also discover that LLMs have an uneven degree of diversity in the culture symbols, and that cultures from different geographic regions have different presence in LLMs' culture-agnostic generation. Our findings promote further research in studying the knowledge and fairness of global culture perception in LLMs. Code and Data can be found in: https://github.com/huihanlhh/Culture-Gen/
△ Less
Submitted 26 April, 2024; v1 submitted 15 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling
Authors:
Nathan Lambert,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Jacob Morrison,
LJ Miranda,
Bill Yuchen Lin,
Khyathi Chandu,
Nouha Dziri,
Sachin Kumar,
Tom Zick,
Ye** Choi,
Noah A. Smith,
Hannaneh Hajishirzi
Abstract:
Reward models (RMs) are at the crux of successfully using RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those models. Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them. Resources for reward model training a…
▽ More
Reward models (RMs) are at the crux of successfully using RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those models. Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them. Resources for reward model training and understanding are sparse in the nascent open-source community around them. To enhance scientific understanding of reward models, we present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation. The RewardBench dataset is a collection of prompt-chosen-rejected trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety, to benchmark how reward models perform on challenging, structured and out-of-distribution queries. We create specific comparison datasets for RMs that have subtle, but verifiable reasons (e.g. bugs, incorrect facts) why one answer should be preferred to another. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods, such as the direct MLE training of classifiers and the implicit reward modeling of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We present many findings on propensity for refusals, reasoning limitations, and instruction following shortcomings of various reward models towards a better understanding of the RLHF process.
△ Less
Submitted 8 June, 2024; v1 submitted 20 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment
Authors:
Taylor Sorensen,
Jared Moore,
Jillian Fisher,
Mitchell Gordon,
Niloofar Mireshghallah,
Christopher Michael Rytting,
Andre Ye,
Liwei Jiang,
Ximing Lu,
Nouha Dziri,
Tim Althoff,
Ye** Choi
Abstract:
With increased power and prevalence of AI systems, it is ever more critical that AI systems are designed to serve all, i.e., people with diverse values and perspectives. However, aligning models to serve pluralistic human values remains an open research question. In this piece, we propose a roadmap to pluralistic alignment, specifically using language models as a test bed. We identify and formaliz…
▽ More
With increased power and prevalence of AI systems, it is ever more critical that AI systems are designed to serve all, i.e., people with diverse values and perspectives. However, aligning models to serve pluralistic human values remains an open research question. In this piece, we propose a roadmap to pluralistic alignment, specifically using language models as a test bed. We identify and formalize three possible ways to define and operationalize pluralism in AI systems: 1) Overton pluralistic models that present a spectrum of reasonable responses; 2) Steerably pluralistic models that can steer to reflect certain perspectives; and 3) Distributionally pluralistic models that are well-calibrated to a given population in distribution. We also propose and formalize three possible classes of pluralistic benchmarks: 1) Multi-objective benchmarks, 2) Trade-off steerable benchmarks, which incentivize models to steer to arbitrary trade-offs, and 3) Jury-pluralistic benchmarks which explicitly model diverse human ratings. We use this framework to argue that current alignment techniques may be fundamentally limited for pluralistic AI; indeed, we highlight empirical evidence, both from our own experiments and from other work, that standard alignment procedures might reduce distributional pluralism in models, motivating the need for further research on pluralistic alignment.
△ Less
Submitted 7 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
The Unlocking Spell on Base LLMs: Rethinking Alignment via In-Context Learning
Authors:
Bill Yuchen Lin,
Abhilasha Ravichander,
Ximing Lu,
Nouha Dziri,
Melanie Sclar,
Khyathi Chandu,
Chandra Bhagavatula,
Ye** Choi
Abstract:
The alignment tuning process of large language models (LLMs) typically involves instruction learning through supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and preference tuning via reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). A recent study, LIMA (Zhou et al. 2023), shows that using merely 1K examples for SFT can achieve significant alignment performance as well, suggesting that the effect of alignment tunin…
▽ More
The alignment tuning process of large language models (LLMs) typically involves instruction learning through supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and preference tuning via reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). A recent study, LIMA (Zhou et al. 2023), shows that using merely 1K examples for SFT can achieve significant alignment performance as well, suggesting that the effect of alignment tuning might be "superficial." This raises questions about how exactly the alignment tuning transforms a base LLM.
We analyze the effect of alignment tuning by examining the token distribution shift between base LLMs and their aligned counterpart. Our findings reveal that base LLMs and their alignment-tuned versions perform nearly identically in decoding on the majority of token positions. Most distribution shifts occur with stylistic tokens. These direct evidence strongly supports the Superficial Alignment Hypothesis suggested by LIMA.
Based on these findings, we rethink the alignment of LLMs by posing the research question: how effectively can we align base LLMs without SFT or RLHF? To address this, we introduce a simple, tuning-free alignment method, URIAL. URIAL achieves effective alignment purely through in-context learning (ICL) with base LLMs, requiring as few as three constant stylistic examples and a system prompt. We conduct a fine-grained and interpretable evaluation on a diverse set of examples, named JUST-EVAL-INSTRUCT. Results demonstrate that base LLMs with URIAL can match or even surpass the performance of LLMs aligned with SFT or SFT+RLHF. We show that the gap between tuning-free and tuning-based alignment methods can be significantly reduced through strategic prompting and ICL. Our findings on the superficial nature of alignment tuning and results with URIAL suggest that deeper analysis and theoretical understanding of alignment is crucial to future LLM research.
△ Less
Submitted 3 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
The Generative AI Paradox: "What It Can Create, It May Not Understand"
Authors:
Peter West,
Ximing Lu,
Nouha Dziri,
Faeze Brahman,
Linjie Li,
Jena D. Hwang,
Liwei Jiang,
Jillian Fisher,
Abhilasha Ravichander,
Khyathi Chandu,
Benjamin Newman,
Pang Wei Koh,
Allyson Ettinger,
Ye** Choi
Abstract:
The recent wave of generative AI has sparked unprecedented global attention, with both excitement and concern over potentially superhuman levels of artificial intelligence: models now take only seconds to produce outputs that would challenge or exceed the capabilities even of expert humans. At the same time, models still show basic errors in understanding that would not be expected even in non-exp…
▽ More
The recent wave of generative AI has sparked unprecedented global attention, with both excitement and concern over potentially superhuman levels of artificial intelligence: models now take only seconds to produce outputs that would challenge or exceed the capabilities even of expert humans. At the same time, models still show basic errors in understanding that would not be expected even in non-expert humans. This presents us with an apparent paradox: how do we reconcile seemingly superhuman capabilities with the persistence of errors that few humans would make? In this work, we posit that this tension reflects a divergence in the configuration of intelligence in today's generative models relative to intelligence in humans. Specifically, we propose and test the Generative AI Paradox hypothesis: generative models, having been trained directly to reproduce expert-like outputs, acquire generative capabilities that are not contingent upon -- and can therefore exceed -- their ability to understand those same types of outputs. This contrasts with humans, for whom basic understanding almost always precedes the ability to generate expert-level outputs. We test this hypothesis through controlled experiments analyzing generation vs. understanding in generative models, across both language and image modalities. Our results show that although models can outperform humans in generation, they consistently fall short of human capabilities in measures of understanding, as well as weaker correlation between generation and understanding performance, and more brittleness to adversarial inputs. Our findings support the hypothesis that models' generative capability may not be contingent upon understanding capability, and call for caution in interpreting artificial intelligence by analogy to human intelligence.
△ Less
Submitted 31 October, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
What Makes it Ok to Set a Fire? Iterative Self-distillation of Contexts and Rationales for Disambiguating Defeasible Social and Moral Situations
Authors:
Kavel Rao,
Liwei Jiang,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Yuling Gu,
Niket Tandon,
Nouha Dziri,
Faeze Brahman,
Ye** Choi
Abstract:
Moral or ethical judgments rely heavily on the specific contexts in which they occur. Understanding varying shades of defeasible contextualizations (i.e., additional information that strengthens or attenuates the moral acceptability of an action) is critical to accurately represent the subtlety and intricacy of grounded human moral judgment in real-life scenarios.
We introduce defeasible moral r…
▽ More
Moral or ethical judgments rely heavily on the specific contexts in which they occur. Understanding varying shades of defeasible contextualizations (i.e., additional information that strengthens or attenuates the moral acceptability of an action) is critical to accurately represent the subtlety and intricacy of grounded human moral judgment in real-life scenarios.
We introduce defeasible moral reasoning: a task to provide grounded contexts that make an action more or less morally acceptable, along with commonsense rationales that justify the reasoning. To elicit high-quality task data, we take an iterative self-distillation approach that starts from a small amount of unstructured seed knowledge from GPT-3 and then alternates between (1) self-distillation from student models; (2) targeted filtering with a critic model trained by human judgment (to boost validity) and NLI (to boost diversity); (3) self-imitation learning (to amplify the desired data quality). This process yields a student model that produces defeasible contexts with improved validity, diversity, and defeasibility. From this model we distill a high-quality dataset, δ-Rules-of-Thumb, of 1.2M entries of contextualizations and rationales for 115K defeasible moral actions rated highly by human annotators 85.9% to 99.8% of the time. Using δ-RoT we obtain a final student model that wins over all intermediate student models by a notable margin.
△ Less
Submitted 1 November, 2023; v1 submitted 23 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Phenomenal Yet Puzzling: Testing Inductive Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models with Hypothesis Refinement
Authors:
Linlu Qiu,
Liwei Jiang,
Ximing Lu,
Melanie Sclar,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Chandra Bhagavatula,
Bailin Wang,
Yoon Kim,
Ye** Choi,
Nouha Dziri,
Xiang Ren
Abstract:
The ability to derive underlying principles from a handful of observations and then generalize to novel situations -- known as inductive reasoning -- is central to human intelligence. Prior work suggests that language models (LMs) often fall short on inductive reasoning, despite achieving impressive success on research benchmarks. In this work, we conduct a systematic study of the inductive reason…
▽ More
The ability to derive underlying principles from a handful of observations and then generalize to novel situations -- known as inductive reasoning -- is central to human intelligence. Prior work suggests that language models (LMs) often fall short on inductive reasoning, despite achieving impressive success on research benchmarks. In this work, we conduct a systematic study of the inductive reasoning capabilities of LMs through iterative hypothesis refinement, a technique that more closely mirrors the human inductive process than standard input-output prompting. Iterative hypothesis refinement employs a three-step process: proposing, selecting, and refining hypotheses in the form of textual rules. By examining the intermediate rules, we observe that LMs are phenomenal hypothesis proposers (i.e., generating candidate rules), and when coupled with a (task-specific) symbolic interpreter that is able to systematically filter the proposed set of rules, this hybrid approach achieves strong results across inductive reasoning benchmarks that require inducing causal relations, language-like instructions, and symbolic concepts. However, they also behave as puzzling inductive reasoners, showing notable performance gaps between rule induction (i.e., identifying plausible rules) and rule application (i.e., applying proposed rules to instances), suggesting that LMs are proposing hypotheses without being able to actually apply the rules. Through empirical and human analyses, we further reveal several discrepancies between the inductive reasoning processes of LMs and humans, shedding light on both the potentials and limitations of using LMs in inductive reasoning tasks.
△ Less
Submitted 22 May, 2024; v1 submitted 12 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties
Authors:
Taylor Sorensen,
Liwei Jiang,
Jena Hwang,
Sydney Levine,
Valentina Pyatkin,
Peter West,
Nouha Dziri,
Ximing Lu,
Kavel Rao,
Chandra Bhagavatula,
Maarten Sap,
John Tasioulas,
Ye** Choi
Abstract:
Human values are crucial to human decision-making. Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another (e.g., when considering lying to a friend to protect their feelings, how does one balance honesty with friendship?). As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out these potentially irreducible value conflicts. To improve A…
▽ More
Human values are crucial to human decision-making. Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another (e.g., when considering lying to a friend to protect their feelings, how does one balance honesty with friendship?). As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out these potentially irreducible value conflicts. To improve AI systems to better reflect value pluralism, the first-order challenge is to explore the extent to which AI systems can model pluralistic human values, rights, and duties as well as their interaction.
We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations. ValuePrism's contextualized values are generated by GPT-4 and deemed high-quality by human annotators 91% of the time. We conduct a large-scale study with annotators across diverse social and demographic backgrounds to try to understand whose values are represented.
With ValuePrism, we build Kaleido, an open, light-weight, and structured language-based multi-task model that generates, explains, and assesses the relevance and valence (i.e., support or oppose) of human values, rights, and duties within a specific context. Humans prefer the sets of values output by our system over the teacher GPT-4, finding them more accurate and with broader coverage. In addition, we demonstrate that Kaleido can help explain variability in human decision-making by outputting contrasting values. Finally, we show that Kaleido's representations transfer to other philosophical frameworks and datasets, confirming the benefit of an explicit, modular, and interpretable approach to value pluralism. We hope that our work will serve as a step to making more explicit the implicit values behind human decision-making and to steering AI systems to make decisions that are more in accordance with them.
△ Less
Submitted 2 April, 2024; v1 submitted 1 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
-
Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Training
Authors:
Zeqiu Wu,
Yushi Hu,
Weijia Shi,
Nouha Dziri,
Alane Suhr,
Prithviraj Ammanabrolu,
Noah A. Smith,
Mari Ostendorf,
Hannaneh Hajishirzi
Abstract:
Language models (LMs) often exhibit undesirable text generation behaviors, including generating false, toxic, or irrelevant outputs. Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) - where human preference judgments on LM outputs are transformed into a learning signal - has recently shown promise in addressing these issues. However, such holistic feedback conveys limited information on long text…
▽ More
Language models (LMs) often exhibit undesirable text generation behaviors, including generating false, toxic, or irrelevant outputs. Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) - where human preference judgments on LM outputs are transformed into a learning signal - has recently shown promise in addressing these issues. However, such holistic feedback conveys limited information on long text outputs; it does not indicate which aspects of the outputs influenced user preference; e.g., which parts contain what type(s) of errors. In this paper, we use fine-grained human feedback (e.g., which sentence is false, which sub-sentence is irrelevant) as an explicit training signal. We introduce Fine-Grained RLHF, a framework that enables training and learning from reward functions that are fine-grained in two respects: (1) density, providing a reward after every segment (e.g., a sentence) is generated; and (2) incorporating multiple reward models associated with different feedback types (e.g., factual incorrectness, irrelevance, and information incompleteness). We conduct experiments on detoxification and long-form question answering to illustrate how learning with such reward functions leads to improved performance, supported by both automatic and human evaluation. Additionally, we show that LM behaviors can be customized using different combinations of fine-grained reward models. We release all data, collected human feedback, and codes at https://FineGrainedRLHF.github.io.
△ Less
Submitted 30 October, 2023; v1 submitted 2 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality
Authors:
Nouha Dziri,
Ximing Lu,
Melanie Sclar,
Xiang Lorraine Li,
Liwei Jiang,
Bill Yuchen Lin,
Peter West,
Chandra Bhagavatula,
Ronan Le Bras,
Jena D. Hwang,
Soumya Sanyal,
Sean Welleck,
Xiang Ren,
Allyson Ettinger,
Zaid Harchaoui,
Ye** Choi
Abstract:
Transformer large language models (LLMs) have sparked admiration for their exceptional performance on tasks that demand intricate multi-step reasoning. Yet, these models simultaneously show failures on surprisingly trivial problems. This begs the question: Are these errors incidental, or do they signal more substantial limitations? In an attempt to demystify transformer LLMs, we investigate the li…
▽ More
Transformer large language models (LLMs) have sparked admiration for their exceptional performance on tasks that demand intricate multi-step reasoning. Yet, these models simultaneously show failures on surprisingly trivial problems. This begs the question: Are these errors incidental, or do they signal more substantial limitations? In an attempt to demystify transformer LLMs, we investigate the limits of these models across three representative compositional tasks -- multi-digit multiplication, logic grid puzzles, and a classic dynamic programming problem. These tasks require breaking problems down into sub-steps and synthesizing these steps into a precise answer. We formulate compositional tasks as computation graphs to systematically quantify the level of complexity, and break down reasoning steps into intermediate sub-procedures. Our empirical findings suggest that transformer LLMs solve compositional tasks by reducing multi-step compositional reasoning into linearized subgraph matching, without necessarily develo** systematic problem-solving skills. To round off our empirical study, we provide theoretical arguments on abstract multi-step reasoning problems that highlight how autoregressive generations' performance can rapidly decay with\,increased\,task\,complexity.
△ Less
Submitted 31 October, 2023; v1 submitted 29 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Inference-Time Policy Adapters (IPA): Tailoring Extreme-Scale LMs without Fine-tuning
Authors:
Ximing Lu,
Faeze Brahman,
Peter West,
Jaehun Jang,
Khyathi Chandu,
Abhilasha Ravichander,
Lianhui Qin,
Prithviraj Ammanabrolu,
Liwei Jiang,
Sahana Ramnath,
Nouha Dziri,
Jillian Fisher,
Bill Yuchen Lin,
Skyler Hallinan,
Xiang Ren,
Sean Welleck,
Ye** Choi
Abstract:
While extreme-scale language models have demonstrated exceptional performance on a variety of language tasks, the degree of control over these language models through pure prompting can often be limited. Directly fine-tuning such language models can be effective for tailoring them, but it can be either extremely costly (e.g., GPT-3) or not even feasible for the broader community (e.g., GPT-4).
W…
▽ More
While extreme-scale language models have demonstrated exceptional performance on a variety of language tasks, the degree of control over these language models through pure prompting can often be limited. Directly fine-tuning such language models can be effective for tailoring them, but it can be either extremely costly (e.g., GPT-3) or not even feasible for the broader community (e.g., GPT-4).
We propose Inference-time Policy Adapters (IPA), which efficiently tailors a language model such as GPT-3 without fine-tuning it. IPA guides a large base model during decoding time through a lightweight policy adapter trained to optimize an arbitrary user objective with reinforcement learning.
On five challenging text generation tasks, such as toxicity reduction and lexically constrained generation, IPA consistently brings significant improvements over off-the-shelf language models. It outperforms competitive baseline methods, sometimes even including expensive fine-tuning. In particular, tailoring GPT-2 with IPA can outperform GPT-3, while tailoring GPT-3 with IPA brings a major performance boost over GPT-3 (and sometimes even over GPT-4). Our promising results highlight the potential of IPA as a lightweight alternative to tailoring extreme-scale language models.
△ Less
Submitted 6 December, 2023; v1 submitted 24 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Evaluating Open-Domain Question Answering in the Era of Large Language Models
Authors:
Ehsan Kamalloo,
Nouha Dziri,
Charles L. A. Clarke,
Davood Rafiei
Abstract:
Lexical matching remains the de facto evaluation method for open-domain question answering (QA). Unfortunately, lexical matching fails completely when a plausible candidate answer does not appear in the list of gold answers, which is increasingly the case as we shift from extractive to generative models. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) for QA aggravates lexical matching failures…
▽ More
Lexical matching remains the de facto evaluation method for open-domain question answering (QA). Unfortunately, lexical matching fails completely when a plausible candidate answer does not appear in the list of gold answers, which is increasingly the case as we shift from extractive to generative models. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) for QA aggravates lexical matching failures since candidate answers become longer, thereby making matching with the gold answers even more challenging. Without accurate evaluation, the true progress in open-domain QA remains unknown. In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of various open-domain QA models, including LLMs, by manually evaluating their answers on a subset of NQ-open, a popular benchmark. Our assessments reveal that while the true performance of all models is significantly underestimated, the performance of the InstructGPT (zero-shot) LLM increases by nearly +60%, making it on par with existing top models, and the InstructGPT (few-shot) model actually achieves a new state-of-the-art on NQ-open. We also find that more than 50% of lexical matching failures are attributed to semantically equivalent answers. We further demonstrate that regex matching ranks QA models consistent with human judgments, although still suffering from unnecessary strictness. Finally, we demonstrate that automated evaluation models are a reasonable surrogate for lexical matching in some circumstances, but not for long-form answers generated by LLMs. The automated models struggle in detecting hallucinations in LLM answers and are thus unable to evaluate LLMs. At this time, there appears to be no substitute for human evaluation.
△ Less
Submitted 6 July, 2023; v1 submitted 11 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Authors:
Aman Madaan,
Niket Tandon,
Prakhar Gupta,
Skyler Hallinan,
Luyu Gao,
Sarah Wiegreffe,
Uri Alon,
Nouha Dziri,
Shrimai Prabhumoye,
Yiming Yang,
Shashank Gupta,
Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder,
Katherine Hermann,
Sean Welleck,
Amir Yazdanbakhsh,
Peter Clark
Abstract:
Like humans, large language models (LLMs) do not always generate the best output on their first try. Motivated by how humans refine their written text, we introduce Self-Refine, an approach for improving initial outputs from LLMs through iterative feedback and refinement. The main idea is to generate an initial output using an LLMs; then, the same LLMs provides feedback for its output and uses it…
▽ More
Like humans, large language models (LLMs) do not always generate the best output on their first try. Motivated by how humans refine their written text, we introduce Self-Refine, an approach for improving initial outputs from LLMs through iterative feedback and refinement. The main idea is to generate an initial output using an LLMs; then, the same LLMs provides feedback for its output and uses it to refine itself, iteratively. Self-Refine does not require any supervised training data, additional training, or reinforcement learning, and instead uses a single LLM as the generator, refiner, and feedback provider. We evaluate Self-Refine across 7 diverse tasks, ranging from dialog response generation to mathematical reasoning, using state-of-the-art (GPT-3.5, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) LLMs. Across all evaluated tasks, outputs generated with Self-Refine are preferred by humans and automatic metrics over those generated with the same LLM using conventional one-step generation, improving by ~20% absolute on average in task performance. Our work demonstrates that even state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 can be further improved at test time using our simple, standalone approach.
△ Less
Submitted 25 May, 2023; v1 submitted 30 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
Elastic Weight Removal for Faithful and Abstractive Dialogue Generation
Authors:
Nico Daheim,
Nouha Dziri,
Mrinmaya Sachan,
Iryna Gurevych,
Edoardo M. Ponti
Abstract:
Ideally, dialogue systems should generate responses that are faithful to the knowledge contained in relevant documents. However, many models generate hallucinated responses instead that contradict it or contain unverifiable information. To mitigate such undesirable behaviour, it has been proposed to fine-tune a `negative expert' on negative examples and subtract its parameters from those of a pre-…
▽ More
Ideally, dialogue systems should generate responses that are faithful to the knowledge contained in relevant documents. However, many models generate hallucinated responses instead that contradict it or contain unverifiable information. To mitigate such undesirable behaviour, it has been proposed to fine-tune a `negative expert' on negative examples and subtract its parameters from those of a pre-trained model. However, intuitively, this does not take into account that some parameters are more responsible than others in causing hallucinations. Thus, we propose to weigh their individual importance via (an approximation of) the Fisher Information matrix, which measures the uncertainty of their estimate. We call this method Elastic Weight Removal (EWR). We evaluate our method -- using different variants of Flan-T5 as a backbone language model -- on multiple datasets for information-seeking dialogue generation and compare our method with state-of-the-art techniques for faithfulness, such as CTRL, Quark, DExperts, and Noisy Channel reranking. Extensive automatic and human evaluation shows that EWR systematically increases faithfulness at minor costs in terms of other metrics. However, we notice that only discouraging hallucinations may increase extractiveness, i.e. shallow copy-pasting of document spans, which can be undesirable. Hence, as a second main contribution, we show that our method can be extended to simultaneously discourage hallucinations and extractive responses. We publicly release the code for reproducing EWR and all baselines.
△ Less
Submitted 30 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
CHAMPAGNE: Learning Real-world Conversation from Large-Scale Web Videos
Authors:
Seungju Han,
Jack Hessel,
Nouha Dziri,
Ye** Choi,
Youngjae Yu
Abstract:
Visual information is central to conversation: body gestures and physical behaviour, for example, contribute to meaning that transcends words alone. To date, however, most neural conversational models are limited to just text. We introduce CHAMPAGNE, a generative model of conversations that can account for visual contexts. To train CHAMPAGNE, we collect and release YTD-18M, a large-scale corpus of…
▽ More
Visual information is central to conversation: body gestures and physical behaviour, for example, contribute to meaning that transcends words alone. To date, however, most neural conversational models are limited to just text. We introduce CHAMPAGNE, a generative model of conversations that can account for visual contexts. To train CHAMPAGNE, we collect and release YTD-18M, a large-scale corpus of 18M video-based dialogues. YTD-18M is constructed from web videos: crucial to our data collection pipeline is a pretrained language model that converts error-prone automatic transcripts to a cleaner dialogue format while maintaining meaning. Human evaluation reveals that YTD-18M is more sensible and specific than prior resources (MMDialog, 1M dialogues), while maintaining visual-groundedness. Experiments demonstrate that 1) CHAMPAGNE learns to conduct conversation from YTD-18M; and 2) when fine-tuned, it achieves state-of-the-art results on four vision-language tasks focused on real-world conversations. We release data, models, and code.
△ Less
Submitted 16 August, 2023; v1 submitted 16 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
FaithDial: A Faithful Benchmark for Information-Seeking Dialogue
Authors:
Nouha Dziri,
Ehsan Kamalloo,
Sivan Milton,
Osmar Zaiane,
Mo Yu,
Edoardo M. Ponti,
Siva Reddy
Abstract:
The goal of information-seeking dialogue is to respond to seeker queries with natural language utterances that are grounded on knowledge sources. However, dialogue systems often produce unsupported utterances, a phenomenon known as hallucination. To mitigate this behavior, we adopt a data-centric solution and create FaithDial, a new benchmark for hallucination-free dialogues, by editing hallucinat…
▽ More
The goal of information-seeking dialogue is to respond to seeker queries with natural language utterances that are grounded on knowledge sources. However, dialogue systems often produce unsupported utterances, a phenomenon known as hallucination. To mitigate this behavior, we adopt a data-centric solution and create FaithDial, a new benchmark for hallucination-free dialogues, by editing hallucinated responses in the Wizard of Wikipedia (WoW) benchmark. We observe that FaithDial is more faithful than WoW while also maintaining engaging conversations. We show that FaithDial can serve as training signal for: i) a hallucination critic, which discriminates whether an utterance is faithful or not, and boosts the performance by 12.8 F1 score on the BEGIN benchmark compared to existing datasets for dialogue coherence; ii) high-quality dialogue generation. We benchmark a series of state-of-the-art models and propose an auxiliary contrastive objective that achieves the highest level of faithfulness and abstractiveness based on several automated metrics. Further, we find that the benefits of FaithDial generalize to zero-shot transfer on other datasets, such as CMU-Dog and TopicalChat. Finally, human evaluation reveals that responses generated by models trained on FaithDial are perceived as more interpretable, cooperative, and engaging.
△ Less
Submitted 23 October, 2022; v1 submitted 22 April, 2022;
originally announced April 2022.
-
On the Origin of Hallucinations in Conversational Models: Is it the Datasets or the Models?
Authors:
Nouha Dziri,
Sivan Milton,
Mo Yu,
Osmar Zaiane,
Siva Reddy
Abstract:
Knowledge-grounded conversational models are known to suffer from producing factually invalid statements, a phenomenon commonly called hallucination. In this work, we investigate the underlying causes of this phenomenon: is hallucination due to the training data, or to the models? We conduct a comprehensive human study on both existing knowledge-grounded conversational benchmarks and several state…
▽ More
Knowledge-grounded conversational models are known to suffer from producing factually invalid statements, a phenomenon commonly called hallucination. In this work, we investigate the underlying causes of this phenomenon: is hallucination due to the training data, or to the models? We conduct a comprehensive human study on both existing knowledge-grounded conversational benchmarks and several state-of-the-art models. Our study reveals that the standard benchmarks consist of >60% hallucinated responses, leading to models that not only hallucinate but even amplify hallucinations. Our findings raise important questions on the quality of existing datasets and models trained using them. We make our annotations publicly available for future research.
△ Less
Submitted 17 April, 2022;
originally announced April 2022.
-
Decomposed Mutual Information Estimation for Contrastive Representation Learning
Authors:
Alessandro Sordoni,
Nouha Dziri,
Hannes Schulz,
Geoff Gordon,
Phil Bachman,
Remi Tachet
Abstract:
Recent contrastive representation learning methods rely on estimating mutual information (MI) between multiple views of an underlying context. E.g., we can derive multiple views of a given image by applying data augmentation, or we can split a sequence into views comprising the past and future of some step in the sequence. Contrastive lower bounds on MI are easy to optimize, but have a strong unde…
▽ More
Recent contrastive representation learning methods rely on estimating mutual information (MI) between multiple views of an underlying context. E.g., we can derive multiple views of a given image by applying data augmentation, or we can split a sequence into views comprising the past and future of some step in the sequence. Contrastive lower bounds on MI are easy to optimize, but have a strong underestimation bias when estimating large amounts of MI. We propose decomposing the full MI estimation problem into a sum of smaller estimation problems by splitting one of the views into progressively more informed subviews and by applying the chain rule on MI between the decomposed views. This expression contains a sum of unconditional and conditional MI terms, each measuring modest chunks of the total MI, which facilitates approximation via contrastive bounds. To maximize the sum, we formulate a contrastive lower bound on the conditional MI which can be approximated efficiently. We refer to our general approach as Decomposed Estimation of Mutual Information (DEMI). We show that DEMI can capture a larger amount of MI than standard non-decomposed contrastive bounds in a synthetic setting, and learns better representations in a vision domain and for dialogue generation.
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
Evaluating Attribution in Dialogue Systems: The BEGIN Benchmark
Authors:
Nouha Dziri,
Hannah Rashkin,
Tal Linzen,
David Reitter
Abstract:
Knowledge-grounded dialogue systems powered by large language models often generate responses that, while fluent, are not attributable to a relevant source of information. Progress towards models that do not exhibit this issue requires evaluation metrics that can quantify its prevalence. To this end, we introduce the Benchmark for Evaluation of Grounded INteraction (BEGIN), comprised of 12k dialog…
▽ More
Knowledge-grounded dialogue systems powered by large language models often generate responses that, while fluent, are not attributable to a relevant source of information. Progress towards models that do not exhibit this issue requires evaluation metrics that can quantify its prevalence. To this end, we introduce the Benchmark for Evaluation of Grounded INteraction (BEGIN), comprised of 12k dialogue turns generated by neural dialogue systems trained on three knowledge-grounded dialogue corpora. We collect human annotations assessing the extent to which the models' responses can be attributed to the given background information. We then use BEGIN to analyze eight evaluation metrics. We find that these metrics rely on spurious correlations, do not reliably distinguish attributable abstractive responses from unattributable ones, and perform substantially worse when the knowledge source is longer. Our findings underscore the need for more sophisticated and robust evaluation metrics for knowledge-grounded dialogue. We make BEGIN publicly available at https://github.com/google/BEGIN-dataset.
△ Less
Submitted 28 June, 2022; v1 submitted 30 April, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
-
Neural Path Hunter: Reducing Hallucination in Dialogue Systems via Path Grounding
Authors:
Nouha Dziri,
Andrea Madotto,
Osmar Zaiane,
Avishek Joey Bose
Abstract:
Dialogue systems powered by large pre-trained language models (LM) exhibit an innate ability to deliver fluent and natural-looking responses. Despite their impressive generation performance, these models can often generate factually incorrect statements impeding their widespread adoption. In this paper, we focus on the task of improving the faithfulness -- and thus reduce hallucination -- of Neura…
▽ More
Dialogue systems powered by large pre-trained language models (LM) exhibit an innate ability to deliver fluent and natural-looking responses. Despite their impressive generation performance, these models can often generate factually incorrect statements impeding their widespread adoption. In this paper, we focus on the task of improving the faithfulness -- and thus reduce hallucination -- of Neural Dialogue Systems to known facts supplied by a Knowledge Graph (KG). We propose Neural Path Hunter which follows a generate-then-refine strategy whereby a generated response is amended using the k-hop subgraph of a KG. Neural Path Hunter leverages a separate token-level fact critic to identify plausible sources of hallucination followed by a refinement stage consisting of a chain of two neural LM's that retrieves correct entities by crafting a query signal that is propagated over the k-hop subgraph. Our proposed model can easily be applied to any dialogue generated responses without retraining the model. We empirically validate our proposed approach on the OpenDialKG dataset against a suite of metrics and report a relative improvement of faithfulness over dialogue responses by 20.35% based on FeQA (Durmus et al., 2020).
△ Less
Submitted 14 September, 2021; v1 submitted 17 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
-
Evaluating Coherence in Dialogue Systems using Entailment
Authors:
Nouha Dziri,
Ehsan Kamalloo,
Kory W. Mathewson,
Osmar Zaiane
Abstract:
Evaluating open-domain dialogue systems is difficult due to the diversity of possible correct answers. Automatic metrics such as BLEU correlate weakly with human annotations, resulting in a significant bias across different models and datasets. Some researchers resort to human judgment experimentation for assessing response quality, which is expensive, time consuming, and not scalable. Moreover, j…
▽ More
Evaluating open-domain dialogue systems is difficult due to the diversity of possible correct answers. Automatic metrics such as BLEU correlate weakly with human annotations, resulting in a significant bias across different models and datasets. Some researchers resort to human judgment experimentation for assessing response quality, which is expensive, time consuming, and not scalable. Moreover, judges tend to evaluate a small number of dialogues, meaning that minor differences in evaluation configuration may lead to dissimilar results. In this paper, we present interpretable metrics for evaluating topic coherence by making use of distributed sentence representations. Furthermore, we introduce calculable approximations of human judgment based on conversational coherence by adopting state-of-the-art entailment techniques. Results show that our metrics can be used as a surrogate for human judgment, making it easy to evaluate dialogue systems on large-scale datasets and allowing an unbiased estimate for the quality of the responses.
△ Less
Submitted 31 March, 2020; v1 submitted 6 April, 2019;
originally announced April 2019.
-
Augmenting Neural Response Generation with Context-Aware Topical Attention
Authors:
Nouha Dziri,
Ehsan Kamalloo,
Kory W. Mathewson,
Osmar Zaiane
Abstract:
Sequence-to-Sequence (Seq2Seq) models have witnessed a notable success in generating natural conversational exchanges. Notwithstanding the syntactically well-formed responses generated by these neural network models, they are prone to be acontextual, short and generic. In this work, we introduce a Topical Hierarchical Recurrent Encoder Decoder (THRED), a novel, fully data-driven, multi-turn respon…
▽ More
Sequence-to-Sequence (Seq2Seq) models have witnessed a notable success in generating natural conversational exchanges. Notwithstanding the syntactically well-formed responses generated by these neural network models, they are prone to be acontextual, short and generic. In this work, we introduce a Topical Hierarchical Recurrent Encoder Decoder (THRED), a novel, fully data-driven, multi-turn response generation system intended to produce contextual and topic-aware responses. Our model is built upon the basic Seq2Seq model by augmenting it with a hierarchical joint attention mechanism that incorporates topical concepts and previous interactions into the response generation. To train our model, we provide a clean and high-quality conversational dataset mined from Reddit comments. We evaluate THRED on two novel automated metrics, dubbed Semantic Similarity and Response Echo Index, as well as with human evaluation. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed model is able to generate more diverse and contextually relevant responses compared to the strong baselines.
△ Less
Submitted 4 June, 2019; v1 submitted 2 November, 2018;
originally announced November 2018.
