Is poisoning a real threat to LLM alignment? Maybe more so than you think
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the potential threat of poisoning attacks on large language models (LLMs) and their alignment with intended behavior.
- The authors argue that poisoning may be a more significant concern for LLM alignment than previously thought, and provide evidence and analysis to support this claim.
- The paper also discusses related work in the area of LLM safety and robustness, as well as potential mitigation strategies.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are a type of artificial intelligence that can generate human-like text. These models are trained on vast amounts of data and can be incredibly powerful, but they can also be vulnerable to certain types of attacks.
One potential threat to LLMs is something called "poisoning." This is when an attacker deliberately introduces malicious or misleading data into the model's training process, with the goal of causing the model to behave in unintended or harmful ways.
The authors of this paper argue that poisoning may be a more serious threat to LLM alignment than previously recognized. Alignment refers to the ability of the model to behave in a way that is consistent with the intended purpose and values of its creators.
The paper provides evidence and analysis to support this claim, and also discusses related work in the field of LLM safety and robustness. Additionally, the authors explore potential strategies for mitigating the risks of poisoning attacks, such as adversarial training and direct alignment techniques.
Overall, the paper highlights an important and often overlooked issue in the development of safe and reliable LLMs, and provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussions around AI alignment and robustness.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by presenting the problem of LLM alignment, which is the challenge of ensuring that these powerful models behave in a way that is consistent with their intended purpose and values. The authors argue that poisoning attacks, where an attacker deliberately introduces malicious or misleading data into the model's training process, may be a more significant threat to LLM alignment than previously recognized.
To support this claim, the paper provides a detailed analysis of different types of poisoning attacks and their potential impact on LLM behavior. The authors explore scenarios where an attacker could, for example, inject false or misleading information into the training data, or manipulate the model's objective function during the training process.
The paper also reviews related work in the area of LLM safety and robustness, including techniques like adversarial training and direct alignment methods. The authors discuss the strengths and limitations of these approaches, and suggest areas for further research and development.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important concerns about the potential threat of poisoning attacks to LLM alignment, and provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussions around AI safety and robustness.
One potential limitation of the research is that it focuses primarily on theoretical and hypothetical scenarios, without extensive empirical evidence or case studies. While the analysis is well-reasoned and grounded in existing literature, further empirical validation would help to strengthen the claims and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the risks.
Additionally, the paper could have explored the potential tradeoffs and challenges associated with different mitigation strategies, such as the potential impact on model performance or the complexity of implementation. A more nuanced discussion of these trade-offs could help readers to better evaluate the feasibility and practicality of the proposed solutions.
Overall, the paper highlights an important issue that deserves further attention and research from the AI community. By continuing to explore the risks of poisoning attacks and developing robust mitigation strategies, the field can work towards the development of safer and more reliable large language models that can be trusted to behave in alignment with their intended purposes.
Conclusion
This paper presents a compelling argument that poisoning attacks may be a more significant threat to LLM alignment than previously recognized. The authors provide a detailed analysis of the potential impacts of poisoning on LLM behavior, and review related work in the areas of LLM safety and robustness.
While the paper could benefit from additional empirical validation and a more nuanced discussion of mitigation strategies, it nonetheless makes an important contribution to the ongoing discussions around AI alignment and reliability. By continuing to explore and address the risks of poisoning attacks, the AI community can work towards the development of large language models that are both powerful and trustworthy.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Is poisoning a real threat to LLM alignment? Maybe more so than you think
Pankayaraj Pathmanathan, Souradip Chakraborty, Xiangyu Liu, Yongyuan Liang, Furong Huang
Recent advancements in Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) have significantly impacted the alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs). The sensitivity of reinforcement learning algorithms such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) has led to new line work on Direct Policy Optimization (DPO), which treats RLHF in a supervised learning framework. The increased practical use of these RLHF methods warrants an analysis of their vulnerabilities. In this work, we investigate the vulnerabilities of DPO to poisoning attacks under different scenarios and compare the effectiveness of preference poisoning, a first of its kind. We comprehensively analyze DPO's vulnerabilities under different types of attacks, i.e., backdoor and non-backdoor attacks, and different poisoning methods across a wide array of language models, i.e., LLama 7B, Mistral 7B, and Gemma 7B. We find that unlike PPO-based methods, which, when it comes to backdoor attacks, require at least 4% of the data to be poisoned to elicit harmful behavior, we exploit the true vulnerabilities of DPO more simply so we can poison the model with only as much as 0.5% of the data. We further investigate the potential reasons behind the vulnerability and how well this vulnerability translates into backdoor vs non-backdoor attacks.
Read more6/21/2024
🏅
0
RLHFPoison: Reward Poisoning Attack for Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback in Large Language Models
Jiongxiao Wang, Junlin Wu, Muhao Chen, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik, Chaowei Xiao
Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) is a methodology designed to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences, playing an important role in LLMs alignment. Despite its advantages, RLHF relies on human annotators to rank the text, which can introduce potential security vulnerabilities if any adversarial annotator (i.e., attackers) manipulates the ranking score by up-ranking any malicious text to steer the LLM adversarially. To assess the red-teaming of RLHF against human preference data poisoning, we propose RankPoison, a poisoning attack method on candidates' selection of preference rank flipping to reach certain malicious behaviors (e.g., generating longer sequences, which can increase the computational cost). With poisoned dataset generated by RankPoison, we can perform poisoning attacks on LLMs to generate longer tokens without hurting the original safety alignment performance. Moreover, applying RankPoison, we also successfully implement a backdoor attack where LLMs can generate longer answers under questions with the trigger word. Our findings highlight critical security challenges in RLHF, underscoring the necessity for more robust alignment methods for LLMs.
Read more6/21/2024
0
Is DPO Superior to PPO for LLM Alignment? A Comprehensive Study
Shusheng Xu, Wei Fu, Jiaxuan Gao, Wenjie Ye, Weilin Liu, Zhiyu Mei, Guangju Wang, Chao Yu, Yi Wu
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is currently the most widely used method to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Existing RLHF methods can be roughly categorized as either reward-based or reward-free. Novel applications such as ChatGPT and Claude leverage reward-based methods that first learn a reward model and apply actor-critic algorithms, such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO). However, in academic benchmarks, state-of-the-art results are often achieved via reward-free methods, such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Is DPO truly superior to PPO? Why does PPO perform poorly on these benchmarks? In this paper, we first conduct both theoretical and empirical studies on the algorithmic properties of DPO and show that DPO may have fundamental limitations. Moreover, we also comprehensively examine PPO and reveal the key factors for the best performances of PPO in fine-tuning LLMs. Finally, we benchmark DPO and PPO across a collection of RLHF testbeds, ranging from dialogue to code generation. Experiment results demonstrate that PPO is able to surpass other alignment methods in all cases and achieve state-of-the-art results in challenging code competitions.
Read more4/23/2024
0
Best-of-Venom: Attacking RLHF by Injecting Poisoned Preference Data
Tim Baumgartner, Yang Gao, Dana Alon, Donald Metzler
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is a popular method for aligning Language Models (LM) with human values and preferences. RLHF requires a large number of preference pairs as training data, which are often used in both the Supervised Fine-Tuning and Reward Model training and therefore publicly available datasets are commonly used. In this work, we study to what extent a malicious actor can manipulate the LMs generations by poisoning the preferences, i.e., injecting poisonous preference pairs into these datasets and the RLHF training process. We propose strategies to build poisonous preference pairs and test their performance by poisoning two widely used preference datasets. Our results show that preference poisoning is highly effective: injecting a small amount of poisonous data (1-5% of the original dataset), we can effectively manipulate the LM to generate a target entity in a target sentiment (positive or negative). The findings from our experiments also shed light on strategies to defend against the preference poisoning attack.
Read more8/7/2024