Red Teaming Language Models for Contradictory Dialogues
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Investigates using "red teaming" techniques to identify contradictions in language model outputs
- Aims to improve language model safety and robustness by detecting self-contradictions
- Introduces a new dataset and benchmark for evaluating language models' ability to handle contradictory dialogues
Plain English Explanation
This paper explores using "red teaming" techniques to identify contradictions in the outputs of large language models. Red teaming refers to the practice of proactively looking for vulnerabilities or weaknesses in a system.
The researchers were interested in improving the safety and robustness of language models by detecting instances where the model generates self-contradictory statements. This is an important capability, as language models are increasingly being used in high-stakes applications where contradictions could lead to harmful outcomes.
To evaluate language models' ability to handle contradictory dialogues, the researchers created a new dataset and benchmark. This provides a way to systematically test how well models can identify and resolve contradictions, which is a key step towards building more reliable and trustworthy language AI systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a new task and dataset, called ContraDoc, for evaluating language models' ability to handle contradictory dialogues. The dataset consists of pairs of contradictory statements extracted from online discussions.
The researchers then propose a "red teaming" approach to detect contradictions in language model outputs. This involves proactively generating adversarial examples - inputs designed to expose weaknesses in the model. The paper explores several techniques for generating these adversarial examples, drawing on prior work on adversarial attacks for dialogue systems and language model deception.
The paper also introduces a contrastive fine-tuning approach, called ConLearn, to improve language models' ability to handle ambiguity and contradictions. This involves training the model to explicitly reason about the consistency of its outputs.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a valuable contribution by highlighting the challenge of handling contradictions as an important frontier for language model safety and robustness. The ContraDoc dataset and red teaming techniques provide a useful benchmark and methodology for evaluating these capabilities.
However, the paper also acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research. For example, the dataset is limited to a specific type of contradictions found in online discussions, and it's unclear how well the techniques would generalize to other forms of contradiction.
Additionally, while the ConLearn approach shows promise, the paper does not provide a full characterization of its strengths and weaknesses compared to other fine-tuning techniques for improving model consistency and robustness, such as aligning language models to explicitly handle ambiguity.
Overall, this paper takes an important step towards building more reliable and trustworthy language AI systems, but further research is needed to fully address the challenges of handling contradictions and ensuring the safety of these powerful technologies.
Conclusion
This paper investigates using "red teaming" techniques to identify contradictions in the outputs of large language models. By introducing a new dataset and benchmark for evaluating models' ability to handle contradictory dialogues, the researchers aim to improve the safety and robustness of these AI systems.
The paper's key contributions include the ContraDoc dataset, the red teaming approach for generating adversarial examples, and the ConLearn fine-tuning method for improving models' consistency. While limited in scope, this work represents an important step towards building more reliable and trustworthy language AI that can safely handle complex, ambiguous, and potentially contradictory inputs.
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
Red Teaming Language Models for Contradictory Dialogues
Xiaofei Wen, Bangzheng Li, Tenghao Huang, Muhao Chen
Most language models currently available are prone to self-contradiction during dialogues. To mitigate this issue, this study explores a novel contradictory dialogue processing task that aims to detect and modify contradictory statements in a conversation. This task is inspired by research on context faithfulness and dialogue comprehension, which have demonstrated that the detection and understanding of contradictions often necessitate detailed explanations. We develop a dataset comprising contradictory dialogues, in which one side of the conversation contradicts itself. Each dialogue is accompanied by an explanatory label that highlights the location and details of the contradiction. With this dataset, we present a Red Teaming framework for contradictory dialogue processing. The framework detects and attempts to explain the dialogue, then modifies the existing contradictory content using the explanation. Our experiments demonstrate that the framework improves the ability to detect contradictory dialogues and provides valid explanations. Additionally, it showcases distinct capabilities for modifying such dialogues. Our study highlights the importance of the logical inconsistency problem in conversational AI.
Read more5/20/2024
🤔
0
ContraDoc: Understanding Self-Contradictions in Documents with Large Language Models
Jierui Li, Vipul Raheja, Dhruv Kumar
In recent times, large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on various document-level tasks such as document classification, summarization, and question-answering. However, research on understanding their capabilities on the task of self-contradictions in long documents has been very limited. In this work, we introduce ContraDoc, the first human-annotated dataset to study self-contradictions in long documents across multiple domains, varying document lengths, self-contradictions types, and scope. We then analyze the current capabilities of four state-of-the-art open-source and commercially available LLMs: GPT3.5, GPT4, PaLM2, and LLaMAv2 on this dataset. While GPT4 performs the best and can outperform humans on this task, we find that it is still unreliable and struggles with self-contradictions that require more nuance and context. We release the dataset and all the code associated with the experiments (https://github.com/ddhruvkr/CONTRADOC).
Read more4/16/2024
0
Exploring Straightforward Conversational Red-Teaming
George Kour, Naama Zwerdling, Marcel Zalmanovici, Ateret Anaby-Tavor, Ora Nova Fandina, Eitan Farchi
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in business dialogue systems but they pose security and ethical risks. Multi-turn conversations, where context influences the model's behavior, can be exploited to produce undesired responses. In this paper, we examine the effectiveness of utilizing off-the-shelf LLMs in straightforward red-teaming approaches, where an attacker LLM aims to elicit undesired output from a target LLM, comparing both single-turn and conversational red-teaming tactics. Our experiments offer insights into various usage strategies that significantly affect their performance as red teamers. They suggest that off-the-shelf models can act as effective red teamers and even adjust their attack strategy based on past attempts, although their effectiveness decreases with greater alignment.
Read more9/10/2024
0
WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia
Yufang Hou, Alessandra Pascale, Javier Carnerero-Cano, Tigran Tchrakian, Radu Marinescu, Elizabeth Daly, Inkit Padhi, Prasanna Sattigeri
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs), such as hallucinations and outdated information. However, it remains unclear how LLMs handle knowledge conflicts arising from different augmented retrieved passages, especially when these passages originate from the same source and have equal trustworthiness. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions that have varying answers based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia, a dataset widely regarded as a high-quality pre-training resource for most LLMs. Specifically, we introduce WikiContradict, a benchmark consisting of 253 high-quality, human-annotated instances designed to assess LLM performance when augmented with retrieved passages containing real-world knowledge conflicts. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages. Through rigorous human evaluations on a subset of WikiContradict instances involving 5 LLMs and over 3,500 judgements, we shed light on the behaviour and limitations of these models. For instance, when provided with two passages containing contradictory facts, all models struggle to generate answers that accurately reflect the conflicting nature of the context, especially for implicit conflicts requiring reasoning. Since human evaluation is costly, we also introduce an automated model that estimates LLM performance using a strong open-source language model, achieving an F-score of 0.8. Using this automated metric, we evaluate more than 1,500 answers from seven LLMs across all WikiContradict instances. To facilitate future work, we release WikiContradict on: https://ibm.biz/wikicontradict.
Read more6/21/2024