发现大模型在可控生成中存在隐藏偏差和副作用,影响意图对齐效果。
A Course Correction in Steerability Evaluation: Revealing Miscalibration and Side Effects in LLMs
- 构建多维目标空间,将用户意图与模型输出建模为属性向量。
- 实测发现当前模型在改写文本时会意外改变阅读难度等属性。
- 提示工程等对齐方法虽有效,但仍有显著副作用,适合研究者参考。
尽管大语言模型在推理和指令遵循任务上取得进展,但其能否可靠地生成符合多种用户目标的输出——即可控性(steerability)——仍不明确。现有评估存在两大缺陷:(1) 多数基准基于过往对话和网络抓取文本,偏向常见请求;(2) 常用的标量性能指标可能掩盖开放生成中模型行为的细微变化。为此,我们提出一种基于多维目标空间的评估框架,将用户目标与模型输出建模为对应文本属性(如阅读难度)的向量。应用于文本重写任务后发现,当前大模型会引发未预期的属性变化,损害可控性。提升可控性的干预手段(如提示工程、best-of-N采样、强化学习微调)效果各异,且副作用依然显著。结果表明,即使强模型也难以实现真正可控,现有对齐策略可能不足。相关框架已开源至https://github.com/MLD3/steerability。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Despite advances in large language models (LLMs) on reasoning and instruction-following tasks, it is unclear whether they can reliably produce outputs aligned with a variety of user goals, a concept called steerability. Two gaps in current LLM evaluation impede steerability evaluation: (1) many benchmarks are built with past LLM chats and Internet-scraped text, which may skew towards common requests, and (2) scalar measures of performance common in prior work could conceal behavioral shifts in LLM outputs in open-ended generation. Thus, we introduce a framework based on a multi-dimensional goal-space that models user goals and LLM outputs as vectors with dimensions corresponding to text attributes (e.g., reading difficulty). Applied to a text-rewriting task, we find that current LLMs induce unintended changes or side effects to text attributes, impeding steerability. Interventions to improve steerability, such as prompt engineering, best-of-N sampling, and reinforcement learning fine-tuning, have varying effectiveness but side effects remain problematic. Our findings suggest that even strong LLMs struggle with steerability, and existing alignment strategies may be insufficient. We open-source our steerability evaluation framework at https://github.com/MLD3/steerability.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。