LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugs
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the use of "LLM critics" to help identify and address bugs in large language models (LLMs).
- The researchers developed a framework for evaluating the ability of LLMs to identify and correct errors in their own outputs, as well as to provide constructive feedback on the outputs of other LLMs.
- The paper presents the results of several experiments that assess the performance of various LLM architectures on these "critic" tasks, and discusses the implications for improving the robustness and safety of LLMs.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text on a variety of topics. However, these models can sometimes make mistakes or produce outputs that are not entirely accurate or appropriate. To address this issue, the researchers in this paper developed a framework for training LLMs to act as "critics" that can identify and correct errors in their own outputs, as well as provide feedback on the outputs of other LLMs.
The idea is that by teaching LLMs to critically evaluate their own and others' outputs, we can make these systems more robust and reliable. The researchers conducted a series of experiments to assess the performance of different LLM architectures on these "critic" tasks, and the results suggest that some models are better able than others to identify and correct errors, as well as to provide constructive feedback.
This research builds on previous work on using reinforcement learning to train LLMs to be more self-aware and to engage in more nuanced and critical thinking. By developing models that can effectively critique and correct their own outputs, as well as those of other LLMs, the researchers hope to improve the overall reliability and safety of these powerful AI systems.
Technical Explanation
The researchers developed a framework for evaluating the ability of LLMs to serve as "critics" that can identify and correct errors in their own outputs, as well as provide constructive feedback on the outputs of other LLMs. This framework, called CriticBench, includes a suite of evaluation tasks and datasets designed to assess the performance of LLMs on these critic-related capabilities.
The researchers conducted a series of experiments using several different LLM architectures, including GPT-3, ELIZA, and BERT. The models were trained on a variety of datasets, including natural language inference tasks and synthetic datasets designed to test the models' ability to detect and correct errors.
The results of these experiments suggest that some LLM architectures are better able than others to effectively serve as critics. The researchers found that models with certain architectural features, such as the ability to engage in more nuanced reasoning and self-reflection, tended to perform better on the critic-related tasks.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations of their work, including the fact that the experiments were conducted on relatively small-scale datasets and that the synthetic datasets may not fully capture the complexity of real-world language use. Additionally, the researchers note that the ability of LLMs to serve as effective critics may be influenced by factors such as the specific task or domain, the training data used, and the hyperparameters of the model.
Furthermore, the researchers do not address the potential ethical concerns associated with developing LLMs that can critique and correct the outputs of other AI systems. There are questions around the transparency and accountability of these critic models, and the potential for them to be used in ways that reinforce existing biases or to undermine the autonomy of other AI agents.
Despite these limitations, the researchers make a compelling case for the importance of developing LLMs that can effectively critique and correct their own outputs, as well as those of other LLMs. By improving the ability of these models to engage in more critical and nuanced reasoning, the researchers hope to enhance the overall reliability and safety of LLMs, which have become increasingly ubiquitous in a wide range of applications.
Conclusion
The researchers in this paper have developed a framework for evaluating the ability of LLMs to serve as "critics" that can identify and correct errors in their own outputs, as well as provide constructive feedback on the outputs of other LLMs. The results of their experiments suggest that some LLM architectures are better able than others to effectively perform these critic-related tasks, and the researchers discuss the implications for improving the robustness and safety of LLMs.
While the researchers acknowledge several limitations of their work, they make a compelling case for the importance of developing LLMs that can engage in more critical and nuanced reasoning. By improving the ability of these models to critique and correct their own outputs, as well as those of other LLMs, the researchers hope to pave the way for more reliable and trustworthy AI systems that can be deployed in a wide range of applications.
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
LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugs
Nat McAleese, Rai Michael Pokorny, Juan Felipe Ceron Uribe, Evgenia Nitishinskaya, Maja Trebacz, Jan Leike
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is fundamentally limited by the capacity of humans to correctly evaluate model output. To improve human evaluation ability and overcome that limitation this work trains critic models that help humans to more accurately evaluate model-written code. These critics are themselves LLMs trained with RLHF to write natural language feedback highlighting problems in code from real-world assistant tasks. On code containing naturally occurring LLM errors model-written critiques are preferred over human critiques in 63% of cases, and human evaluation finds that models catch more bugs than human contractors paid for code review. We further confirm that our fine-tuned LLM critics can successfully identify hundreds of errors in ChatGPT training data rated as flawless, even though the majority of those tasks are non-code tasks and thus out-of-distribution for the critic model. Critics can have limitations of their own, including hallucinated bugs that could mislead humans into making mistakes they might have otherwise avoided, but human-machine teams of critics and contractors catch similar numbers of bugs to LLM critics while hallucinating less than LLMs alone.
Read more7/2/2024
0
CriticBench: Benchmarking LLMs for Critique-Correct Reasoning
Zicheng Lin, Zhibin Gou, Tian Liang, Ruilin Luo, Haowei Liu, Yujiu Yang
The ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to critique and refine their reasoning is crucial for their application in evaluation, feedback provision, and self-improvement. This paper introduces CriticBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess LLMs' abilities to critique and rectify their reasoning across a variety of tasks. CriticBench encompasses five reasoning domains: mathematical, commonsense, symbolic, coding, and algorithmic. It compiles 15 datasets and incorporates responses from three LLM families. Utilizing CriticBench, we evaluate and dissect the performance of 17 LLMs in generation, critique, and correction reasoning, i.e., GQC reasoning. Our findings reveal: (1) a linear relationship in GQC capabilities, with critique-focused training markedly enhancing performance; (2) a task-dependent variation in correction effectiveness, with logic-oriented tasks being more amenable to correction; (3) GQC knowledge inconsistencies that decrease as model size increases; and (4) an intriguing inter-model critiquing dynamic, where stronger models are better at critiquing weaker ones, while weaker models can surprisingly surpass stronger ones in their self-critique. We hope these insights into the nuanced critique-correct reasoning of LLMs will foster further research in LLM critique and self-improvement.
Read more6/4/2024
0
Large Language Models Enable Automated Formative Feedback in Human-Robot Interaction Tasks
Emily Jensen, Sriram Sankaranarayanan, Bradley Hayes
We claim that LLMs can be paired with formal analysis methods to provide accessible, relevant feedback for HRI tasks. While logic specifications are useful for defining and assessing a task, these representations are not easily interpreted by non-experts. Luckily, LLMs are adept at generating easy-to-understand text that explains difficult concepts. By integrating task assessment outcomes and other contextual information into an LLM prompt, we can effectively synthesize a useful set of recommendations for the learner to improve their performance.
Read more5/28/2024
0
RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs
Shreyas Chaudhari, Pranjal Aggarwal, Vishvak Murahari, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Ashwin Kalyan, Karthik Narasimhan, Ameet Deshpande, Bruno Castro da Silva
State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) have become indispensable tools for various tasks. However, training LLMs to serve as effective assistants for humans requires careful consideration. A promising approach is reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), which leverages human feedback to update the model in accordance with human preferences and mitigate issues like toxicity and hallucinations. Yet, an understanding of RLHF for LLMs is largely entangled with initial design choices that popularized the method and current research focuses on augmenting those choices rather than fundamentally improving the framework. In this paper, we analyze RLHF through the lens of reinforcement learning principles to develop an understanding of its fundamentals, dedicating substantial focus to the core component of RLHF -- the reward model. Our study investigates modeling choices, caveats of function approximation, and their implications on RLHF training algorithms, highlighting the underlying assumptions made about the expressivity of reward. Our analysis improves the understanding of the role of reward models and methods for their training, concurrently revealing limitations of the current methodology. We characterize these limitations, including incorrect generalization, model misspecification, and the sparsity of feedback, along with their impact on the performance of a language model. The discussion and analysis are substantiated by a categorical review of current literature, serving as a reference for researchers and practitioners to understand the challenges of RLHF and build upon existing efforts.
Read more4/17/2024