Risk Aware Benchmarking of Large Language Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper discusses the challenges of risk assessment and statistical significance in the age of foundation models, which are large, powerful AI models trained on vast datasets.
- It examines how traditional statistical methods may need to be re-evaluated when applied to the outputs of these complex models.
- The paper proposes using stochastic dominance as a framework for risk assessment and explores its implications for evaluating the statistical significance of model outputs.
Plain English Explanation
As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become more sophisticated, the way we assess their performance and make decisions based on their outputs needs to evolve. The paper on "Risk Assessment and Statistical Significance in the Age of Foundation Models" explores this challenge, focusing on the use of large, powerful AI models known as "foundation models."
These foundation models are trained on vast amounts of data and can be applied to a wide range of tasks, from language processing to image recognition. However, the sheer complexity of these models can make it difficult to apply traditional statistical methods to their outputs. The paper argues that we need new frameworks for risk assessment and evaluating the statistical significance of model predictions.
One approach the paper suggests is the use of "stochastic dominance," a concept from economics and finance that can help us compare the risk and reward profiles of different options. By applying stochastic dominance, the researchers aim to develop more robust and reliable methods for assessing the risks and benefits associated with the outputs of foundation models.
The paper delves into the technical details of stochastic dominance and how it can be applied in the context of AI systems. However, the core idea is relatively straightforward: rather than relying on single-point estimates of risk or reward, stochastic dominance allows us to consider the entire probability distribution of potential outcomes. This can lead to more nuanced and informed decision-making.
Overall, this paper highlights the need for the AI research community to continuously re-evaluate and adapt its methods as the technology continues to evolve. As foundation models become more prevalent, it is crucial that we develop new frameworks for assessing their performance and ensuring their outputs are reliable and trustworthy.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by acknowledging the growing importance of foundation models, which are large, pre-trained AI models that can be fine-tuned for a wide range of tasks. However, the authors argue that the complexity of these models poses challenges for traditional statistical methods used to assess their performance and significance.
To address this issue, the paper proposes the use of stochastic dominance as a framework for risk assessment. Stochastic dominance is a concept from economics and finance that allows for the comparison of probability distributions, rather than relying on single-point estimates of risk or reward.
The paper delves into the technical details of first-order and second-order stochastic dominance, and how these concepts can be applied to evaluate the risk and reward profiles of different model outputs. The authors explain how this approach can lead to more nuanced and robust decision-making compared to traditional mean-risk models.
Furthermore, the paper explores the implications of stochastic dominance for assessing the statistical significance of model outputs. By considering the entire probability distribution, the researchers argue that we can develop more reliable methods for determining the reliability and trustworthiness of foundation model predictions.
The paper also discusses the potential limitations of stochastic dominance and areas for further research, such as the need to address distributional assumptions and the challenges of scaling these methods to high-dimensional model outputs.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a thoughtful and well-reasoned approach to the challenges of risk assessment and statistical significance in the age of foundation models. The authors make a compelling case for the need to move beyond traditional statistical methods and explore alternative frameworks, such as stochastic dominance, that can better capture the complexity and uncertainty inherent in these powerful AI systems.
One potential limitation of the paper is that it focuses primarily on the theoretical and conceptual aspects of stochastic dominance, without providing extensive empirical validation or case studies. While the authors do mention potential applications in areas like financial risk prediction, more concrete examples of how stochastic dominance can be practically implemented and its benefits demonstrated would strengthen the paper's impact.
Additionally, the paper could have delved deeper into the potential challenges and pitfalls of applying stochastic dominance to foundation model outputs. For example, the authors acknowledge the need to address distributional assumptions, but a more thorough discussion of the potential sensitivities and robustness of the approach would be valuable.
Overall, the paper makes a compelling case for the importance of re-evaluating statistical methods in the age of foundation models and offers a promising framework in the form of stochastic dominance. As the AI research community continues to grapple with these issues, the insights and perspectives presented in this work will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing dialogue and evolution of best practices.
Conclusion
The paper "Risk Assessment and Statistical Significance in the Age of Foundation Models" highlights the need for the AI research community to re-examine and adapt its methods as the technology continues to advance. The authors propose the use of stochastic dominance as a framework for risk assessment and evaluating the statistical significance of model outputs, arguing that this approach can lead to more nuanced and reliable decision-making compared to traditional statistical methods.
By exploring the technical details of stochastic dominance and its implications for foundation models, the paper provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussions around the responsible development and deployment of these powerful AI systems. As the use of large language models and other foundation models becomes more widespread, the insights and perspectives presented in this work will be increasingly relevant and important for ensuring the trustworthiness and reliability of AI-powered 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
Risk Aware Benchmarking of Large Language Models
Apoorva Nitsure, Youssef Mroueh, Mattia Rigotti, Kristjan Greenewald, Brian Belgodere, Mikhail Yurochkin, Jiri Navratil, Igor Melnyk, Jerret Ross
We propose a distributional framework for benchmarking socio-technical risks of foundation models with quantified statistical significance. Our approach hinges on a new statistical relative testing based on first and second order stochastic dominance of real random variables. We show that the second order statistics in this test are linked to mean-risk models commonly used in econometrics and mathematical finance to balance risk and utility when choosing between alternatives. Using this framework, we formally develop a risk-aware approach for foundation model selection given guardrails quantified by specified metrics. Inspired by portfolio optimization and selection theory in mathematical finance, we define a metrics portfolio for each model as a means to aggregate a collection of metrics, and perform model selection based on the stochastic dominance of these portfolios. The statistical significance of our tests is backed theoretically by an asymptotic analysis via central limit theorems instantiated in practice via a bootstrap variance estimate. We use our framework to compare various large language models regarding risks related to drifting from instructions and outputting toxic content.
Read more6/11/2024
0
Evaluating language models as risk scores
Andr'e F. Cruz, Moritz Hardt, Celestine Mendler-Dunner
Current question-answering benchmarks predominantly focus on accuracy in realizable prediction tasks. Conditioned on a question and answer-key, does the most likely token match the ground truth? Such benchmarks necessarily fail to evaluate language models' ability to quantify outcome uncertainty. In this work, we focus on the use of language models as risk scores for unrealizable prediction tasks. We introduce folktexts, a software package to systematically generate risk scores using large language models, and evaluate them against benchmark prediction tasks. Specifically, the package derives natural language tasks from US Census data products, inspired by popular tabular data benchmarks. A flexible API allows for any task to be constructed out of 28 census features whose values are mapped to prompt-completion pairs. We demonstrate the utility of folktexts through a sweep of empirical insights on 16 recent large language models, inspecting risk scores, calibration curves, and diverse evaluation metrics. We find that zero-shot risk sores have high predictive signal while being widely miscalibrated: base models overestimate outcome uncertainty, while instruction-tuned models underestimate uncertainty and generate over-confident risk scores.
Read more7/23/2024
0
RiskLabs: Predicting Financial Risk Using Large Language Model Based on Multi-Sources Data
Yupeng Cao, Zhi Chen, Qingyun Pei, Fabrizio Dimino, Lorenzo Ausiello, Prashant Kumar, K. P. Subbalakshmi, Papa Momar Ndiaye
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques, particularly large language models (LLMs), in finance has garnered increasing academic attention. Despite progress, existing studies predominantly focus on tasks like financial text summarization, question-answering (Q$&$A), and stock movement prediction (binary classification), with a notable gap in the application of LLMs for financial risk prediction. Addressing this gap, in this paper, we introduce textbf{RiskLabs}, a novel framework that leverages LLMs to analyze and predict financial risks. RiskLabs uniquely combines different types of financial data, including textual and vocal information from Earnings Conference Calls (ECCs), market-related time series data, and contextual news data surrounding ECC release dates. Our approach involves a multi-stage process: initially extracting and analyzing ECC data using LLMs, followed by gathering and processing time-series data before the ECC dates to model and understand risk over different timeframes. Using multimodal fusion techniques, RiskLabs amalgamates these varied data features for comprehensive multi-task financial risk prediction. Empirical experiment results demonstrate RiskLab's effectiveness in forecasting both volatility and variance in financial markets. Through comparative experiments, we demonstrate how different data sources contribute to financial risk assessment and discuss the critical role of LLMs in this context. Our findings not only contribute to the AI in finance application but also open new avenues for applying LLMs in financial risk assessment.
Read more4/12/2024
0
CyberSecEval 2: A Wide-Ranging Cybersecurity Evaluation Suite for Large Language Models
Manish Bhatt, Sahana Chennabasappa, Yue Li, Cyrus Nikolaidis, Daniel Song, Shengye Wan, Faizan Ahmad, Cornelius Aschermann, Yaohui Chen, Dhaval Kapil, David Molnar, Spencer Whitman, Joshua Saxe
Large language models (LLMs) introduce new security risks, but there are few comprehensive evaluation suites to measure and reduce these risks. We present BenchmarkName, a novel benchmark to quantify LLM security risks and capabilities. We introduce two new areas for testing: prompt injection and code interpreter abuse. We evaluated multiple state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs, including GPT-4, Mistral, Meta Llama 3 70B-Instruct, and Code Llama. Our results show that conditioning away risk of attack remains an unsolved problem; for example, all tested models showed between 26% and 41% successful prompt injection tests. We further introduce the safety-utility tradeoff: conditioning an LLM to reject unsafe prompts can cause the LLM to falsely reject answering benign prompts, which lowers utility. We propose quantifying this tradeoff using False Refusal Rate (FRR). As an illustration, we introduce a novel test set to quantify FRR for cyberattack helpfulness risk. We find many LLMs able to successfully comply with borderline benign requests while still rejecting most unsafe requests. Finally, we quantify the utility of LLMs for automating a core cybersecurity task, that of exploiting software vulnerabilities. This is important because the offensive capabilities of LLMs are of intense interest; we quantify this by creating novel test sets for four representative problems. We find that models with coding capabilities perform better than those without, but that further work is needed for LLMs to become proficient at exploit generation. Our code is open source and can be used to evaluate other LLMs.
Read more4/23/2024