Yixu Wang


2024

pdf bib
Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese
Kexin Huang | Xiangyang Liu | Qianyu Guo | Tianxiang Sun | Jiawei Sun | Yaru Wang | Zeyang Zhou | Yixu Wang | Yan Teng | Xipeng Qiu | Yingchun Wang | Dahua Lin
Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) across various regions underscores the urgent need to evaluate their alignment with human values. Current benchmarks, however, fall short of effectively uncovering safety vulnerabilities in LLMs. Despite numerous models achieving high scores and ‘topping the chart’ in these evaluations, there is still a significant gap in LLMs’ deeper alignment with human values and achieving genuine harmlessness. To this end, this paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames, which encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values such as harmony. Accordingly, we carefully design adversarial prompts that incorporate complex scenarios and jailbreaking methods, mostly with implicit malice. By prompting 17 mainstream LLMs, we obtain model responses and rigorously annotate them for detailed evaluation. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames, particularly in the safety and fairness dimensions. We also develop a lightweight specified scorer capable of scoring LLMs across multiple dimensions to efficiently evaluate new models on the benchmark. The complexity of Flames has far exceeded existing benchmarks, setting a new challenge for contemporary LLMs and highlighting the need for further alignment of LLMs. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/AIFlames/Flames.

pdf bib
Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well?
Yixu Wang | Yan Teng | Kexin Huang | Chengqi Lyu | Songyang Zhang | Wenwei Zhang | Xingjun Ma | Yu-Gang Jiang | Yu Qiao | Yingchun Wang
Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)

The growing awareness of safety concerns in large language models (LLMs) has sparked considerable interest in the evaluation of safety. This study investigates an under-explored issue about the evaluation of LLMs, namely the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization. That is, LLM only remembers the answer style for open-ended safety questions, which makes it unable to solve other forms of safety tests. We refer to this phenomenon as fake alignment and construct a comparative benchmark to empirically verify its existence in LLMs. We introduce a Fake alIgNment Evaluation (FINE) framework and two novel metrics——Consistency Score (CS) and Consistent Safety Score (CSS), which jointly assess two complementary forms of evaluation to quantify fake alignment and obtain corrected performance estimation. Applying FINE to 14 widely-used LLMs reveals several models with purported safety are poorly aligned in practice. Subsequently, we found that multiple-choice format data can also be used as high-quality contrast distillation-based fine-tuning data, which can strongly improve the alignment consistency of LLMs with minimal fine-tuning overhead. For data and code, see https://github.com/AIFlames/Fake-Alignment.