Showing 1–26 of 26 results for author: Röttger, P

Evidence of a log scaling law for political persuasion with large language models

Authors: Kobi Hackenburg, Ben M. Tappin, Paul Röttger, Scott Hale, Jonathan Bright, Helen Margetts

Abstract: Large language models can now generate political messages as persuasive as those written by humans, raising concerns about how far this persuasiveness may continue to increase with model size. Here, we generate 720 persuasive messages on 10 U.S. political issues from 24 language models spanning several orders of magnitude in size. We then deploy these messages in a large-scale randomized survey ex… ▽ More Large language models can now generate political messages as persuasive as those written by humans, raising concerns about how far this persuasiveness may continue to increase with model size. Here, we generate 720 persuasive messages on 10 U.S. political issues from 24 language models spanning several orders of magnitude in size. We then deploy these messages in a large-scale randomized survey experiment (N = 25,982) to estimate the persuasive capability of each model. Our findings are twofold. First, we find evidence of a log scaling law: model persuasiveness is characterized by sharply diminishing returns, such that current frontier models are barely more persuasive than models smaller in size by an order of magnitude or more. Second, mere task completion (coherence, staying on topic) appears to account for larger models' persuasive advantage. These findings suggest that further scaling model size will not much increase the persuasiveness of static LLM-generated messages. △ Less

Submitted 20 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: 16 pages, 4 figures

Beyond Flesch-Kincaid: Prompt-based Metrics Improve Difficulty Classification of Educational Texts

Authors: Donya Rooein, Paul Rottger, Anastassia Shaitarova, Dirk Hovy

Abstract: Using large language models (LLMs) for educational applications like dialogue-based teaching is a hot topic. Effective teaching, however, requires teachers to adapt the difficulty of content and explanations to the education level of their students. Even the best LLMs today struggle to do this well. If we want to improve LLMs on this adaptation task, we need to be able to measure adaptation succes… ▽ More Using large language models (LLMs) for educational applications like dialogue-based teaching is a hot topic. Effective teaching, however, requires teachers to adapt the difficulty of content and explanations to the education level of their students. Even the best LLMs today struggle to do this well. If we want to improve LLMs on this adaptation task, we need to be able to measure adaptation success reliably. However, current Static metrics for text difficulty, like the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score, are known to be crude and brittle. We, therefore, introduce and evaluate a new set of Prompt-based metrics for text difficulty. Based on a user study, we create Prompt-based metrics as inputs for LLMs. They leverage LLM's general language understanding capabilities to capture more abstract and complex features than Static metrics. Regression experiments show that adding our Prompt-based metrics significantly improves text difficulty classification over Static metrics alone. Our results demonstrate the promise of using LLMs to evaluate text adaptation to different education levels. △ Less

Submitted 6 June, 2024; v1 submitted 15 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

From Languages to Geographies: Towards Evaluating Cultural Bias in Hate Speech Datasets

Authors: Manuel Tonneau, Diyi Liu, Samuel Fraiberger, Ralph Schroeder, Scott A. Hale, Paul Röttger

Abstract: Perceptions of hate can vary greatly across cultural contexts. Hate speech (HS) datasets, however, have traditionally been developed by language. This hides potential cultural biases, as one language may be spoken in different countries home to different cultures. In this work, we evaluate cultural bias in HS datasets by leveraging two interrelated cultural proxies: language and geography. We cond… ▽ More Perceptions of hate can vary greatly across cultural contexts. Hate speech (HS) datasets, however, have traditionally been developed by language. This hides potential cultural biases, as one language may be spoken in different countries home to different cultures. In this work, we evaluate cultural bias in HS datasets by leveraging two interrelated cultural proxies: language and geography. We conduct a systematic survey of HS datasets in eight languages and confirm past findings on their English-language bias, but also show that this bias has been steadily decreasing in the past few years. For three geographically-widespread languages -- English, Arabic and Spanish -- we then leverage geographical metadata from tweets to approximate geo-cultural contexts by pairing language and country information. We find that HS datasets for these languages exhibit a strong geo-cultural bias, largely overrepresenting a handful of countries (e.g., US and UK for English) relative to their prominence in both the broader social media population and the general population speaking these languages. Based on these findings, we formulate recommendations for the creation of future HS datasets. △ Less

Submitted 27 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: Accepted at WOAH (NAACL 2024)

Near to Mid-term Risks and Opportunities of Open-Source Generative AI

Authors: Francisco Eiras, Aleksandar Petrov, Bertie Vidgen, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Fabio Pizzati, Katherine Elkins, Supratik Mukhopadhyay, Adel Bibi, Botos Csaba, Fabro Steibel, Fazl Barez, Genevieve Smith, Gianluca Guadagni, Jon Chun, Jordi Cabot, Joseph Marvin Imperial, Juan A. Nolazco-Flores, Lori Landay, Matthew Jackson, Paul Röttger, Philip H. S. Torr, Trevor Darrell, Yong Suk Lee, Jakob Foerster

Abstract: In the next few years, applications of Generative AI are expected to revolutionize a number of different areas, ranging from science & medicine to education. The potential for these seismic changes has triggered a lively debate about potential risks and resulted in calls for tighter regulation, in particular from some of the major tech companies who are leading in AI development. This regulation i… ▽ More In the next few years, applications of Generative AI are expected to revolutionize a number of different areas, ranging from science & medicine to education. The potential for these seismic changes has triggered a lively debate about potential risks and resulted in calls for tighter regulation, in particular from some of the major tech companies who are leading in AI development. This regulation is likely to put at risk the budding field of open-source Generative AI. We argue for the responsible open sourcing of generative AI models in the near and medium term. To set the stage, we first introduce an AI openness taxonomy system and apply it to 40 current large language models. We then outline differential benefits and risks of open versus closed source AI and present potential risk mitigation, ranging from best practices to calls for technical and scientific contributions. We hope that this report will add a much needed missing voice to the current public discourse on near to mid-term AI safety and other societal impact. △ Less

Submitted 24 May, 2024; v1 submitted 25 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: Accepted to ICML'24 as a position paper

The PRISM Alignment Project: What Participatory, Representative and Individualised Human Feedback Reveals About the Subjective and Multicultural Alignment of Large Language Models

Authors: Hannah Rose Kirk, Alexander Whitefield, Paul Röttger, Andrew Bean, Katerina Margatina, Juan Ciro, Rafael Mosquera, Max Bartolo, Adina Williams, He He, Bertie Vidgen, Scott A. Hale

Abstract: Human feedback plays a central role in the alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, open questions remain about the methods (how), domains (where), people (who) and objectives (to what end) of human feedback collection. To navigate these questions, we introduce PRISM, a new dataset which maps the sociodemographics and stated preferences of 1,500 diverse participants from 75 countries, t… ▽ More Human feedback plays a central role in the alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, open questions remain about the methods (how), domains (where), people (who) and objectives (to what end) of human feedback collection. To navigate these questions, we introduce PRISM, a new dataset which maps the sociodemographics and stated preferences of 1,500 diverse participants from 75 countries, to their contextual preferences and fine-grained feedback in 8,011 live conversations with 21 LLMs. PRISM contributes (i) wide geographic and demographic participation in human feedback data; (ii) two census-representative samples for understanding collective welfare (UK and US); and (iii) individualised feedback where every rating is linked to a detailed participant profile, thus permitting exploration of personalisation and attribution of sample artefacts. We focus on collecting conversations that centre subjective and multicultural perspectives on value-laden and controversial topics, where we expect the most interpersonal and cross-cultural disagreement. We demonstrate the usefulness of PRISM via three case studies of dialogue diversity, preference diversity, and welfare outcomes, showing that it matters which humans set alignment norms. As well as offering a rich community resource, we advocate for broader participation in AI development and a more inclusive approach to technology design. △ Less

Submitted 24 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons

Authors: Bertie Vidgen, Adarsh Agrawal, Ahmed M. Ahmed, Victor Akinwande, Namir Al-Nuaimi, Najla Alfaraj, Elie Alhajjar, Lora Aroyo, Trupti Bavalatti, Max Bartolo, Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Kurt Bollacker, Rishi Bomassani, Marisa Ferrara Boston, Siméon Campos, Kal Chakra, Canyu Chen, Cody Coleman, Zacharie Delpierre Coudert, Leon Derczynski, Debojyoti Dutta, Ian Eisenberg, James Ezick, Heather Frase, Brian Fuller , et al. (75 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-pu… ▽ More This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark. △ Less

Submitted 13 May, 2024; v1 submitted 18 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Look at the Text: Instruction-Tuned Language Models are More Robust Multiple Choice Selectors than You Think

Authors: Xinpeng Wang, Chengzhi Hu, Bolei Ma, Paul Röttger, Barbara Plank

Abstract: Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are commonly used to evaluate the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). One common way to evaluate the model response is to rank the candidate answers based on the log probability of the first token prediction. An alternative way is to examine the text output. Prior work has shown that first token probabilities lack robustness to changes in MCQ phrasing, an… ▽ More Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are commonly used to evaluate the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). One common way to evaluate the model response is to rank the candidate answers based on the log probability of the first token prediction. An alternative way is to examine the text output. Prior work has shown that first token probabilities lack robustness to changes in MCQ phrasing, and that first token probabilities do not match text answers for instruction-tuned models. Therefore, in this paper, we investigate the robustness of text answers. We show that the text answers are more robust to question perturbations than the first token probabilities, when the first token answers mismatch the text answers. The difference in robustness increases as the mismatch rate becomes greater. As the mismatch reaches over 50\%, the text answer is more robust to option order changes than the debiased first token probabilities using state-of-the-art debiasing methods such as PriDe. Our findings provide further evidence for the benefits of text answer evaluation over first token probability evaluation. △ Less

Submitted 12 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

SafetyPrompts: a Systematic Review of Open Datasets for Evaluating and Improving Large Language Model Safety

Authors: Paul Röttger, Fabio Pernisi, Bertie Vidgen, Dirk Hovy

Abstract: The last two years have seen a rapid growth in concerns around the safety of large language models (LLMs). Researchers and practitioners have met these concerns by introducing an abundance of new datasets for evaluating and improving LLM safety. However, much of this work has happened in parallel, and with very different goals in mind, ranging from the mitigation of near-term risks around bias and… ▽ More The last two years have seen a rapid growth in concerns around the safety of large language models (LLMs). Researchers and practitioners have met these concerns by introducing an abundance of new datasets for evaluating and improving LLM safety. However, much of this work has happened in parallel, and with very different goals in mind, ranging from the mitigation of near-term risks around bias and toxic content generation to the assessment of longer-term catastrophic risk potential. This makes it difficult for researchers and practitioners to find the most relevant datasets for a given use case, and to identify gaps in dataset coverage that future work may fill. To remedy these issues, we conduct a first systematic review of open datasets for evaluating and improving LLM safety. We review 102 datasets, which we identified through an iterative and community-driven process over the course of several months. We highlight patterns and trends, such as a a trend towards fully synthetic datasets, as well as gaps in dataset coverage, such as a clear lack of non-English datasets. We also examine how LLM safety datasets are used in practice -- in LLM release publications and popular LLM benchmarks -- finding that current evaluation practices are highly idiosyncratic and make use of only a small fraction of available datasets. Our contributions are based on SafetyPrompts.com, a living catalogue of open datasets for LLM safety, which we commit to updating continuously as the field of LLM safety develops. △ Less

Submitted 8 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Improving Adversarial Data Collection by Supporting Annotators: Lessons from GAHD, a German Hate Speech Dataset

Authors: Janis Goldzycher, Paul Röttger, Gerold Schneider

Abstract: Hate speech detection models are only as good as the data they are trained on. Datasets sourced from social media suffer from systematic gaps and biases, leading to unreliable models with simplistic decision boundaries. Adversarial datasets, collected by exploiting model weaknesses, promise to fix this problem. However, adversarial data collection can be slow and costly, and individual annotators… ▽ More Hate speech detection models are only as good as the data they are trained on. Datasets sourced from social media suffer from systematic gaps and biases, leading to unreliable models with simplistic decision boundaries. Adversarial datasets, collected by exploiting model weaknesses, promise to fix this problem. However, adversarial data collection can be slow and costly, and individual annotators have limited creativity. In this paper, we introduce GAHD, a new German Adversarial Hate speech Dataset comprising ca.\ 11k examples. During data collection, we explore new strategies for supporting annotators, to create more diverse adversarial examples more efficiently and provide a manual analysis of annotator disagreements for each strategy. Our experiments show that the resulting dataset is challenging even for state-of-the-art hate speech detection models, and that training on GAHD clearly improves model robustness. Further, we find that mixing multiple support strategies is most advantageous. We make GAHD publicly available at https://github.com/jagol/gahd. △ Less

Submitted 28 March, 2024; originally announced March 2024.

Comments: Accepted at NAACL 2024 (main conference)

Evaluating the Elementary Multilingual Capabilities of Large Language Models with MultiQ

Authors: Carolin Holtermann, Paul Röttger, Timm Dill, Anne Lauscher

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) need to serve everyone, including a global majority of non-English speakers. However, most LLMs today, and open LLMs in particular, are often intended for use in just English (e.g. Llama2, Mistral) or a small handful of high-resource languages (e.g. Mixtral, Qwen). Recent research shows that, despite limits in their intended use, people prompt LLMs in many different la… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) need to serve everyone, including a global majority of non-English speakers. However, most LLMs today, and open LLMs in particular, are often intended for use in just English (e.g. Llama2, Mistral) or a small handful of high-resource languages (e.g. Mixtral, Qwen). Recent research shows that, despite limits in their intended use, people prompt LLMs in many different languages. Therefore, in this paper, we investigate the basic multilingual capabilities of state-of-the-art open LLMs beyond their intended use. For this purpose, we introduce MultiQ, a new silver standard benchmark for basic open-ended question answering with 27.4k test questions across a typologically diverse set of 137 languages. With MultiQ, we evaluate language fidelity, i.e. whether models respond in the prompted language, and question answering accuracy. All LLMs we test respond faithfully and/or accurately for at least some languages beyond their intended use. Most models are more accurate when they respond faithfully. However, differences across models are large, and there is a long tail of languages where models are neither accurate nor faithful. We explore differences in tokenization as a potential explanation for our findings, identifying possible correlations that warrant further investigation. △ Less

Submitted 18 July, 2024; v1 submitted 6 March, 2024; originally announced March 2024.

Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models

Authors: Paul Röttger, Valentin Hofmann, Valentina Pyatkin, Musashi Hinck, Hannah Rose Kirk, Hinrich Schütze, Dirk Hovy

Abstract: Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificial… ▽ More Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs. △ Less

Submitted 5 June, 2024; v1 submitted 26 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Comments: Accepted at ACL 2024 (Main Conference)

"My Answer is C": First-Token Probabilities Do Not Match Text Answers in Instruction-Tuned Language Models

Authors: Xinpeng Wang, Bolei Ma, Chengzhi Hu, Leon Weber-Genzel, Paul Röttger, Frauke Kreuter, Dirk Hovy, Barbara Plank

Abstract: The open-ended nature of language generation makes the evaluation of autoregressive large language models (LLMs) challenging. One common evaluation approach uses multiple-choice questions (MCQ) to limit the response space. The model is then evaluated by ranking the candidate answers by the log probability of the first token prediction. However, first-tokens may not consistently reflect the final r… ▽ More The open-ended nature of language generation makes the evaluation of autoregressive large language models (LLMs) challenging. One common evaluation approach uses multiple-choice questions (MCQ) to limit the response space. The model is then evaluated by ranking the candidate answers by the log probability of the first token prediction. However, first-tokens may not consistently reflect the final response output, due to model's diverse response styles such as starting with "Sure" or refusing to answer. Consequently, MCQ evaluation is not indicative of model behaviour when interacting with users. But by how much? We evaluate how aligned first-token evaluation is with the text output along several dimensions, namely final option choice, refusal rate, choice distribution and robustness under prompt perturbation. Our results show that the two approaches are severely misaligned on all dimensions, reaching mismatch rates over 60%. Models heavily fine-tuned on conversational or safety data are especially impacted. Crucially, models remain misaligned even when we increasingly constrain prompts, i.e., force them to start with an option letter or example template. Our findings i) underscore the importance of inspecting the text output as well and ii) caution against relying solely on first-token evaluation. △ Less

Submitted 4 July, 2024; v1 submitted 22 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Comments: ACL 2024 Findings

SimpleSafetyTests: a Test Suite for Identifying Critical Safety Risks in Large Language Models

Authors: Bertie Vidgen, Nino Scherrer, Hannah Rose Kirk, Rebecca Qian, Anand Kannappan, Scott A. Hale, Paul Röttger

Abstract: The past year has seen rapid acceleration in the development of large language models (LLMs). However, without proper steering and safeguards, LLMs will readily follow malicious instructions, provide unsafe advice, and generate toxic content. We introduce SimpleSafetyTests (SST) as a new test suite for rapidly and systematically identifying such critical safety risks. The test suite comprises 100… ▽ More The past year has seen rapid acceleration in the development of large language models (LLMs). However, without proper steering and safeguards, LLMs will readily follow malicious instructions, provide unsafe advice, and generate toxic content. We introduce SimpleSafetyTests (SST) as a new test suite for rapidly and systematically identifying such critical safety risks. The test suite comprises 100 test prompts across five harm areas that LLMs, for the vast majority of applications, should refuse to comply with. We test 11 open-access and open-source LLMs and four closed-source LLMs, and find critical safety weaknesses. While some of the models do not give a single unsafe response, most give unsafe responses to more than 20% of the prompts, with over 50% unsafe responses in the extreme. Prepending a safety-emphasising system prompt substantially reduces the occurrence of unsafe responses, but does not completely stop them from happening. Trained annotators labelled every model response to SST (n = 3,000). We use these annotations to evaluate five AI safety filters (which assess whether a models' response is unsafe given a prompt) as a way of automatically evaluating models' performance on SST. The filters' performance varies considerably. There are also differences across the five harm areas, and on the unsafe versus safe responses. The widely-used Perspective API has 72% accuracy and a newly-created zero-shot prompt to OpenAI's GPT-4 performs best with 89% accuracy. Content Warning: This paper contains prompts and responses that relate to child abuse, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, scams and fraud, illegal items, and physical harm. △ Less

Submitted 16 February, 2024; v1 submitted 14 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

The Past, Present and Better Future of Feedback Learning in Large Language Models for Subjective Human Preferences and Values

Authors: Hannah Rose Kirk, Andrew M. Bean, Bertie Vidgen, Paul Röttger, Scott A. Hale

Abstract: Human feedback is increasingly used to steer the behaviours of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it is unclear how to collect and incorporate feedback in a way that is efficient, effective and unbiased, especially for highly subjective human preferences and values. In this paper, we survey existing approaches for learning from human feedback, drawing on 95 papers primarily from the ACL and ar… ▽ More Human feedback is increasingly used to steer the behaviours of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it is unclear how to collect and incorporate feedback in a way that is efficient, effective and unbiased, especially for highly subjective human preferences and values. In this paper, we survey existing approaches for learning from human feedback, drawing on 95 papers primarily from the ACL and arXiv repositories.First, we summarise the past, pre-LLM trends for integrating human feedback into language models. Second, we give an overview of present techniques and practices, as well as the motivations for using feedback; conceptual frameworks for defining values and preferences; and how feedback is collected and from whom. Finally, we encourage a better future of feedback learning in LLMs by raising five unresolved conceptual and practical challenges. △ Less

Submitted 11 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Comments: Accepted for the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP, Main)

The Empty Signifier Problem: Towards Clearer Paradigms for Operationalising "Alignment" in Large Language Models

Authors: Hannah Rose Kirk, Bertie Vidgen, Paul Röttger, Scott A. Hale

Abstract: In this paper, we address the concept of "alignment" in large language models (LLMs) through the lens of post-structuralist socio-political theory, specifically examining its parallels to empty signifiers. To establish a shared vocabulary around how abstract concepts of alignment are operationalised in empirical datasets, we propose a framework that demarcates: 1) which dimensions of model behavio… ▽ More In this paper, we address the concept of "alignment" in large language models (LLMs) through the lens of post-structuralist socio-political theory, specifically examining its parallels to empty signifiers. To establish a shared vocabulary around how abstract concepts of alignment are operationalised in empirical datasets, we propose a framework that demarcates: 1) which dimensions of model behaviour are considered important, then 2) how meanings and definitions are ascribed to these dimensions, and by whom. We situate existing empirical literature and provide guidance on deciding which paradigm to follow. Through this framework, we aim to foster a culture of transparency and critical evaluation, aiding the community in navigating the complexities of aligning LLMs with human populations. △ Less

Submitted 15 November, 2023; v1 submitted 3 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Comments: Socially Responsible Language Modelling Research (SoLaR) @ NeurIPs 2023

Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructions

Authors: Federico Bianchi, Mirac Suzgun, Giuseppe Attanasio, Paul Röttger, Dan Jurafsky, Tatsunori Hashimoto, James Zou

Abstract: Training large language models to follow instructions makes them perform better on a wide range of tasks and generally become more helpful. However, a perfectly helpful model will follow even the most malicious instructions and readily generate harmful content. In this paper, we raise concerns over the safety of models that only emphasize helpfulness, not harmlessness, in their instruction-tuning.… ▽ More Training large language models to follow instructions makes them perform better on a wide range of tasks and generally become more helpful. However, a perfectly helpful model will follow even the most malicious instructions and readily generate harmful content. In this paper, we raise concerns over the safety of models that only emphasize helpfulness, not harmlessness, in their instruction-tuning. We show that several popular instruction-tuned models are highly unsafe. Moreover, we show that adding just 3% safety examples (a few hundred demonstrations) when fine-tuning a model like LLaMA can substantially improve its safety. Our safety-tuning does not make models significantly less capable or helpful as measured by standard benchmarks. However, we do find exaggerated safety behaviours, where too much safety-tuning makes models refuse perfectly safe prompts if they superficially resemble unsafe ones. As a whole, our results illustrate trade-offs in training LLMs to be helpful and training them to be safe. △ Less

Submitted 19 March, 2024; v1 submitted 14 September, 2023; originally announced September 2023.

XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models

Authors: Paul Röttger, Hannah Rose Kirk, Bertie Vidgen, Giuseppe Attanasio, Federico Bianchi, Dirk Hovy

Abstract: Without proper safeguards, large language models will readily follow malicious instructions and generate toxic content. This risk motivates safety efforts such as red-teaming and large-scale feedback learning, which aim to make models both helpful and harmless. However, there is a tension between these two objectives, since harmlessness requires models to refuse to comply with unsafe prompts, and… ▽ More Without proper safeguards, large language models will readily follow malicious instructions and generate toxic content. This risk motivates safety efforts such as red-teaming and large-scale feedback learning, which aim to make models both helpful and harmless. However, there is a tension between these two objectives, since harmlessness requires models to refuse to comply with unsafe prompts, and thus not be helpful. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that some models may have struck a poor balance, so that even clearly safe prompts are refused if they use similar language to unsafe prompts or mention sensitive topics. In this paper, we introduce a new test suite called XSTest to identify such eXaggerated Safety behaviours in a systematic way. XSTest comprises 250 safe prompts across ten prompt types that well-calibrated models should not refuse to comply with, and 200 unsafe prompts as contrasts that models, for most applications, should refuse. We describe XSTest's creation and composition, and then use the test suite to highlight systematic failure modes in state-of-the-art language models as well as more general challenges in building safer language models. △ Less

Submitted 1 April, 2024; v1 submitted 2 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

Comments: Accepted at NAACL 2024 (Main Conference)

The Ecological Fallacy in Annotation: Modelling Human Label Variation goes beyond Sociodemographics

Authors: Matthias Orlikowski, Paul Röttger, Philipp Cimiano, Dirk Hovy

Abstract: Many NLP tasks exhibit human label variation, where different annotators give different labels to the same texts. This variation is known to depend, at least in part, on the sociodemographics of annotators. Recent research aims to model individual annotator behaviour rather than predicting aggregated labels, and we would expect that sociodemographic information is useful for these models. On the o… ▽ More Many NLP tasks exhibit human label variation, where different annotators give different labels to the same texts. This variation is known to depend, at least in part, on the sociodemographics of annotators. Recent research aims to model individual annotator behaviour rather than predicting aggregated labels, and we would expect that sociodemographic information is useful for these models. On the other hand, the ecological fallacy states that aggregate group behaviour, such as the behaviour of the average female annotator, does not necessarily explain individual behaviour. To account for sociodemographics in models of individual annotator behaviour, we introduce group-specific layers to multi-annotator models. In a series of experiments for toxic content detection, we find that explicitly accounting for sociodemographic attributes in this way does not significantly improve model performance. This result shows that individual annotation behaviour depends on much more than just sociodemographics. △ Less

Submitted 20 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Comments: ACL2023 Camera-Ready

Personalisation within bounds: A risk taxonomy and policy framework for the alignment of large language models with personalised feedback

Authors: Hannah Rose Kirk, Bertie Vidgen, Paul Röttger, Scott A. Hale

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are used to generate content for a wide range of tasks, and are set to reach a growing audience in coming years due to integration in product interfaces like ChatGPT or search engines like Bing. This intensifies the need to ensure that models are aligned with human preferences and do not produce unsafe, inaccurate or toxic outputs. While alignment techniques like reinf… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) are used to generate content for a wide range of tasks, and are set to reach a growing audience in coming years due to integration in product interfaces like ChatGPT or search engines like Bing. This intensifies the need to ensure that models are aligned with human preferences and do not produce unsafe, inaccurate or toxic outputs. While alignment techniques like reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) and red-teaming can mitigate some safety concerns and improve model capabilities, it is unlikely that an aggregate fine-tuning process can adequately represent the full range of users' preferences and values. Different people may legitimately disagree on their preferences for language and conversational norms, as well as on values or ideologies which guide their communication. Personalising LLMs through micro-level preference learning processes may result in models that are better aligned with each user. However, there are several normative challenges in defining the bounds of a societally-acceptable and safe degree of personalisation. In this paper, we ask how, and in what ways, LLMs should be personalised. First, we review literature on current paradigms for aligning LLMs with human feedback, and identify issues including (i) a lack of clarity regarding what alignment means; (ii) a tendency of technology providers to prescribe definitions of inherently subjective preferences and values; and (iii) a 'tyranny of the crowdworker', exacerbated by a lack of documentation in who we are really aligning to. Second, we present a taxonomy of benefits and risks associated with personalised LLMs, for individuals and society at large. Finally, we propose a three-tiered policy framework that allows users to experience the benefits of personalised alignment, while restraining unsafe and undesirable LLM-behaviours within (supra-)national and organisational bounds. △ Less

Submitted 9 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: 19 pages, 1 table

SemEval-2023 Task 10: Explainable Detection of Online Sexism

Authors: Hannah Rose Kirk, Wenjie Yin, Bertie Vidgen, Paul Röttger

Abstract: Online sexism is a widespread and harmful phenomenon. Automated tools can assist the detection of sexism at scale. Binary detection, however, disregards the diversity of sexist content, and fails to provide clear explanations for why something is sexist. To address this issue, we introduce SemEval Task 10 on the Explainable Detection of Online Sexism (EDOS). We make three main contributions: i) a… ▽ More Online sexism is a widespread and harmful phenomenon. Automated tools can assist the detection of sexism at scale. Binary detection, however, disregards the diversity of sexist content, and fails to provide clear explanations for why something is sexist. To address this issue, we introduce SemEval Task 10 on the Explainable Detection of Online Sexism (EDOS). We make three main contributions: i) a novel hierarchical taxonomy of sexist content, which includes granular vectors of sexism to aid explainability; ii) a new dataset of 20,000 social media comments with fine-grained labels, along with larger unlabelled datasets for model adaptation; and iii) baseline models as well as an analysis of the methods, results and errors for participant submissions to our task. △ Less

Submitted 8 May, 2023; v1 submitted 7 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: SemEval-2023 Task 10 (ACL 2023)

Data-Efficient Strategies for Expanding Hate Speech Detection into Under-Resourced Languages

Authors: Paul Röttger, Debora Nozza, Federico Bianchi, Dirk Hovy

Abstract: Hate speech is a global phenomenon, but most hate speech datasets so far focus on English-language content. This hinders the development of more effective hate speech detection models in hundreds of languages spoken by billions across the world. More data is needed, but annotating hateful content is expensive, time-consuming and potentially harmful to annotators. To mitigate these issues, we explo… ▽ More Hate speech is a global phenomenon, but most hate speech datasets so far focus on English-language content. This hinders the development of more effective hate speech detection models in hundreds of languages spoken by billions across the world. More data is needed, but annotating hateful content is expensive, time-consuming and potentially harmful to annotators. To mitigate these issues, we explore data-efficient strategies for expanding hate speech detection into under-resourced languages. In a series of experiments with mono- and multilingual models across five non-English languages, we find that 1) a small amount of target-language fine-tuning data is needed to achieve strong performance, 2) the benefits of using more such data decrease exponentially, and 3) initial fine-tuning on readily-available English data can partially substitute target-language data and improve model generalisability. Based on these findings, we formulate actionable recommendations for hate speech detection in low-resource language settings. △ Less

Submitted 20 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: Accepted at EMNLP 2022 (Main Conference)

Multilingual HateCheck: Functional Tests for Multilingual Hate Speech Detection Models

Authors: Paul Röttger, Haitham Seelawi, Debora Nozza, Zeerak Talat, Bertie Vidgen

Abstract: Hate speech detection models are typically evaluated on held-out test sets. However, this risks painting an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of model performance because of increasingly well-documented systematic gaps and biases in hate speech datasets. To enable more targeted diagnostic insights, recent research has thus introduced functional tests for hate speech detection models. H… ▽ More Hate speech detection models are typically evaluated on held-out test sets. However, this risks painting an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of model performance because of increasingly well-documented systematic gaps and biases in hate speech datasets. To enable more targeted diagnostic insights, recent research has thus introduced functional tests for hate speech detection models. However, these tests currently only exist for English-language content, which means that they cannot support the development of more effective models in other languages spoken by billions across the world. To help address this issue, we introduce Multilingual HateCheck (MHC), a suite of functional tests for multilingual hate speech detection models. MHC covers 34 functionalities across ten languages, which is more languages than any other hate speech dataset. To illustrate MHC's utility, we train and test a high-performing multilingual hate speech detection model, and reveal critical model weaknesses for monolingual and cross-lingual applications. △ Less

Submitted 20 June, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Comments: Accepted at WOAH (NAACL 2022)

Two Contrasting Data Annotation Paradigms for Subjective NLP Tasks

Authors: Paul Röttger, Bertie Vidgen, Dirk Hovy, Janet B. Pierrehumbert

Abstract: Labelled data is the foundation of most natural language processing tasks. However, labelling data is difficult and there often are diverse valid beliefs about what the correct data labels should be. So far, dataset creators have acknowledged annotator subjectivity, but rarely actively managed it in the annotation process. This has led to partly-subjective datasets that fail to serve a clear downs… ▽ More Labelled data is the foundation of most natural language processing tasks. However, labelling data is difficult and there often are diverse valid beliefs about what the correct data labels should be. So far, dataset creators have acknowledged annotator subjectivity, but rarely actively managed it in the annotation process. This has led to partly-subjective datasets that fail to serve a clear downstream use. To address this issue, we propose two contrasting paradigms for data annotation. The descriptive paradigm encourages annotator subjectivity, whereas the prescriptive paradigm discourages it. Descriptive annotation allows for the surveying and modelling of different beliefs, whereas prescriptive annotation enables the training of models that consistently apply one belief. We discuss benefits and challenges in implementing both paradigms, and argue that dataset creators should explicitly aim for one or the other to facilitate the intended use of their dataset. Lastly, we conduct an annotation experiment using hate speech data that illustrates the contrast between the two paradigms. △ Less

Submitted 29 April, 2022; v1 submitted 14 December, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

Comments: Accepted at NAACL 2022 (Main Conference)

Hatemoji: A Test Suite and Adversarially-Generated Dataset for Benchmarking and Detecting Emoji-based Hate

Authors: Hannah Rose Kirk, Bertram Vidgen, Paul Röttger, Tristan Thrush, Scott A. Hale

Abstract: Detecting online hate is a complex task, and low-performing models have harmful consequences when used for sensitive applications such as content moderation. Emoji-based hate is an emerging challenge for automated detection. We present HatemojiCheck, a test suite of 3,930 short-form statements that allows us to evaluate performance on hateful language expressed with emoji. Using the test suite, we… ▽ More Detecting online hate is a complex task, and low-performing models have harmful consequences when used for sensitive applications such as content moderation. Emoji-based hate is an emerging challenge for automated detection. We present HatemojiCheck, a test suite of 3,930 short-form statements that allows us to evaluate performance on hateful language expressed with emoji. Using the test suite, we expose weaknesses in existing hate detection models. To address these weaknesses, we create the HatemojiBuild dataset using a human-and-model-in-the-loop approach. Models built with these 5,912 adversarial examples perform substantially better at detecting emoji-based hate, while retaining strong performance on text-only hate. Both HatemojiCheck and HatemojiBuild are made publicly available. See our Github Repository (https://github.com/HannahKirk/Hatemoji). HatemojiCheck, HatemojiBuild, and the final Hatemoji Model are also available on HuggingFace (https://huggingface.co/datasets/HannahRoseKirk/). △ Less

Submitted 6 May, 2022; v1 submitted 12 August, 2021; originally announced August 2021.

Journal ref: 2022 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL 2022)

Temporal Adaptation of BERT and Performance on Downstream Document Classification: Insights from Social Media

Authors: Paul Röttger, Janet B. Pierrehumbert

Abstract: Language use differs between domains and even within a domain, language use changes over time. For pre-trained language models like BERT, domain adaptation through continued pre-training has been shown to improve performance on in-domain downstream tasks. In this article, we investigate whether temporal adaptation can bring additional benefits. For this purpose, we introduce a corpus of social med… ▽ More Language use differs between domains and even within a domain, language use changes over time. For pre-trained language models like BERT, domain adaptation through continued pre-training has been shown to improve performance on in-domain downstream tasks. In this article, we investigate whether temporal adaptation can bring additional benefits. For this purpose, we introduce a corpus of social media comments sampled over three years. It contains unlabelled data for adaptation and evaluation on an upstream masked language modelling task as well as labelled data for fine-tuning and evaluation on a downstream document classification task. We find that temporality matters for both tasks: temporal adaptation improves upstream and temporal fine-tuning downstream task performance. Time-specific models generally perform better on past than on future test sets, which matches evidence on the bursty usage of topical words. However, adapting BERT to time and domain does not improve performance on the downstream task over only adapting to domain. Token-level analysis shows that temporal adaptation captures event-driven changes in language use in the downstream task, but not those changes that are actually relevant to task performance. Based on our findings, we discuss when temporal adaptation may be more effective. △ Less

Submitted 8 September, 2021; v1 submitted 16 April, 2021; originally announced April 2021.

Comments: Accepted at EMNLP 2021 (Findings)

HateCheck: Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection Models

Authors: Paul Röttger, Bertram Vidgen, Dong Nguyen, Zeerak Waseem, Helen Margetts, Janet B. Pierrehumbert

Abstract: Detecting online hate is a difficult task that even state-of-the-art models struggle with. Typically, hate speech detection models are evaluated by measuring their performance on held-out test data using metrics such as accuracy and F1 score. However, this approach makes it difficult to identify specific model weak points. It also risks overestimating generalisable model performance due to increas… ▽ More Detecting online hate is a difficult task that even state-of-the-art models struggle with. Typically, hate speech detection models are evaluated by measuring their performance on held-out test data using metrics such as accuracy and F1 score. However, this approach makes it difficult to identify specific model weak points. It also risks overestimating generalisable model performance due to increasingly well-evidenced systematic gaps and biases in hate speech datasets. To enable more targeted diagnostic insights, we introduce HateCheck, a suite of functional tests for hate speech detection models. We specify 29 model functionalities motivated by a review of previous research and a series of interviews with civil society stakeholders. We craft test cases for each functionality and validate their quality through a structured annotation process. To illustrate HateCheck's utility, we test near-state-of-the-art transformer models as well as two popular commercial models, revealing critical model weaknesses. △ Less

Submitted 27 May, 2021; v1 submitted 31 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Comments: Accepted at ACL 2021 (Main Conference)