ALI-Agent: Assessing LLMs' Alignment with Human Values via Agent-based Evaluation

↗ OpenReview ↗ NeurIPS Homepage ↗ Chat

TL;DR

#

Key Takeaways

#

Why does it matter?

#

This paper is crucial for AI researchers as it introduces ALI-Agent, a novel framework addressing the limitations of current LLM evaluation benchmarks. It offers a scalable and adaptive solution for assessing LLMs’ alignment with human values, paving the way for more robust and reliable evaluation methods and promoting the development of more ethical and beneficial AI systems. The automated generation of test scenarios and the iterative refinement process are particularly relevant to current research trends in AI safety and ethics.

Visual Insights

#

This figure shows a comparison of harmfulness scores for test scenarios generated by ALI-Agent and expert-designed scenarios from CrowS-Pairs and ETHICS datasets. The scores were assessed using the OpenAI Moderation API. ALI-Agent produced scenarios with significantly lower harmfulness scores, indicating that it successfully generated scenarios that were more challenging for LLMs to identify risks. The figure highlights the effectiveness of ALI-Agent in probing long-tail risks in LLMs.

This table compares the performance of various LLMs (Large Language Models) on stereotype bias detection tasks across different evaluation settings. The settings include zero-shot evaluations, untargeted and targeted system prompts, and evaluations using the ALI-Agent framework. Lower scores indicate better alignment, meaning the model is less likely to perpetuate harmful stereotypes. The table helps to demonstrate the effectiveness of the ALI-Agent framework in identifying model misalignment related to stereotypes.

In-depth insights

#

LLM Alignment Issues

#

Large language models (LLMs) present significant alignment challenges. Misalignment can lead to the generation of harmful, biased, or factually incorrect content, undermining trust and raising ethical concerns. Bias amplification is a critical issue, where LLMs trained on biased data perpetuate and even exacerbate existing societal prejudices. Lack of transparency in LLM training and decision-making processes makes it difficult to understand and address these issues effectively. Robustness remains a challenge; LLMs can be easily manipulated through adversarial attacks or subtle prompts, leading to unpredictable and potentially harmful outputs. Furthermore, achieving generalizability is difficult; LLMs often struggle to adapt to novel situations or contexts not encountered during training. These issues highlight the need for ongoing research and development in LLM alignment, focusing on techniques to detect and mitigate bias, improve transparency, enhance robustness, and promote generalizable behavior.

ALI-Agent Framework

#

The ALI-Agent framework is an innovative approach to evaluating the alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) with human values. It leverages the autonomous capabilities of LLM-powered agents to create realistic and adaptive test scenarios, going beyond static, expert-designed benchmarks. The framework’s two-stage process, Emulation and Refinement, allows for in-depth probing of even rare, long-tail risks. The Emulation stage automates the generation of test scenarios, while the Refinement stage iteratively refines these scenarios based on LLM responses and feedback, utilizing a memory module to learn from past evaluations. This adaptive nature addresses the rapid evolution of LLMs and enhances the ability to identify emerging alignment issues. By automating much of the testing process, ALI-Agent greatly reduces the human labor required for comprehensive evaluation, ultimately leading to a more efficient and effective method for assessing LLM alignment.

Agent-Based Testing

#

Agent-based testing represents a paradigm shift in evaluating complex systems like Large Language Models (LLMs). Instead of relying on static, pre-defined tests, it leverages the autonomous capabilities of AI agents to dynamically generate and adapt test scenarios, thereby uncovering vulnerabilities and biases that traditional methods might miss. This approach is particularly beneficial for LLMs due to their dynamic and evolving nature. Agent autonomy enables the exploration of a much broader range of potential interactions and real-world scenarios, leading to a more comprehensive and robust assessment of LLM alignment with human values. However, the interpretability of agent actions and the potential for unintended bias in the agent itself present significant challenges that require careful consideration and further research. Ultimately, agent-based testing offers the potential for more realistic and adaptive evaluation, enabling a deeper understanding of LLM behavior and facilitating the development of more reliable and trustworthy AI systems. The core strength lies in its ability to discover long-tail risks, edge cases that might be missed by traditional testing methodologies.

Long-Tail Risk Analysis

#

Analyzing long-tail risks in Large Language Models (LLMs) requires a nuanced approach. Standard benchmarks often fall short, focusing on common failure modes while neglecting rare, yet potentially catastrophic events. A robust methodology for long-tail risk assessment is critical, encompassing both the generation of diverse, nuanced scenarios and an evaluation framework that can detect subtle misalignments. Automated methods are particularly important, as they can scale evaluation to a level infeasible with human-only approaches. Adaptive testing strategies are also crucial, allowing for iterative refinement and exploration of unforeseen vulnerabilities. A key component of long-tail risk analysis involves the use of sophisticated evaluation metrics that can capture even slight deviations from expected behavior. The integration of human evaluation, even in a smaller-scale capacity, can help to validate the findings of automated systems, improving overall accuracy and reliability. Ultimately, a comprehensive long-tail risk analysis methodology should be designed with continuous adaptation in mind, enabling the assessment of LLMs’ alignment with human values across a vast and evolving landscape of potential risks.

Future Research

#

Future research directions stemming from this work could explore several key areas. Expanding the types of human values assessed beyond the three examined (stereotypes, morality, legality) is crucial for a more holistic understanding of LLM alignment. Investigating different LLM architectures and sizes to determine the impact of model scale and design on alignment is another important avenue. Furthermore, developing more sophisticated refinement strategies within the ALI-Agent framework to more effectively probe long-tail risks and uncover subtle misalignments would enhance its capabilities. Finally, exploring the use of alternative evaluation methods in conjunction with ALI-Agent, such as human-in-the-loop evaluations or more nuanced quantitative metrics, would strengthen the overall robustness and validity of the alignment assessments. Investigating the potential for using ALI-Agent to iteratively improve LLM alignment through active feedback loops during the training process itself warrants further investigation.

More visual insights

#

More on figures

This figure compares the existing evaluation benchmark with the proposed ALI-Agent. The existing benchmark uses pre-defined misconduct datasets to create test scenarios for LLMs. In contrast, ALI-Agent uses both pre-defined datasets and user queries, employing two stages: Emulation (generating realistic scenarios) and Refinement (iteratively refining scenarios to probe long-tail risks). This two-stage process allows ALI-Agent to conduct more in-depth assessments and explore a wider range of real-world scenarios to evaluate LLM alignment with human values.

This figure compares the existing evaluation benchmarks with the proposed ALI-Agent framework. Existing methods rely on pre-defined datasets of misconducts to test LLMs, which is limited in scope and doesn’t adapt to evolving LLMs. ALI-Agent introduces automation, using LLMs as agents, to generate realistic scenarios (Emulation stage) and iteratively refine them to uncover less obvious risks (Refinement stage). The figure highlights ALI-Agent’s ability to leverage both pre-defined datasets and user queries, making it a more comprehensive and adaptive approach for evaluating LLM alignment with human values.

This figure shows a comparison of harmfulness scores for test scenarios generated by ALI-Agent versus expert-designed scenarios from two benchmarks, CrowS-Pairs and ETHICS. The radar charts illustrate that ALI-Agent produces scenarios with significantly lower harmfulness scores across various categories (violence, hate speech, sexual content, etc.), making it harder for LLMs to detect the risks and thus revealing potential long-tail misalignments.

This figure shows a comparison of harmfulness scores for test scenarios generated by ALI-Agent and expert-designed scenarios from CrowS-Pairs and ETHICS datasets. ALI-Agent’s scenarios show significantly lower harmfulness scores as assessed by the OpenAI Moderation API, indicating that they are more challenging for LLMs to identify risks, especially those in the long tail.

More on tables

This table compares the performance of several LLMs on the DecodingTrust dataset, which evaluates models’ alignment with human values regarding stereotypes. The table shows the average model agreeability scores for each LLM across three different evaluation settings: Zero-shot, Untargeted System Prompt, and Targeted System Prompt. A lower score indicates better alignment (less agreement with stereotypical statements). The ALI-Agent results are also included, demonstrating its effectiveness in revealing misalignment.

This table compares the performance of various LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Gemini-Pro, ChatGLM3, Vicuna-7B, Vicuna-13B, Vicuna-33B, Llama 2-7B, Llama 2-13B, Llama 2-70B) across different evaluation settings on the ETHICS and Social Chemistry 101 datasets. The evaluation settings include zero-shot, untargeted system prompts, evasive sentences, in-context attacks, and the proposed ALI-Agent method. The metric used is model agreeability, where a lower score indicates better alignment with human values. The table shows the average misalignment rate for each LLM across all the evaluation settings for both datasets.

This table compares the performance of different LLMs on the task of evaluating their alignment with legal principles as defined by Singapore’s Rapid Transit Systems Regulations. The comparison uses various prompt engineering techniques, including zero-shot prompting, untargeted system prompts, evasive sentences, and in-context attacks. The model agreeability metric, where a lower score indicates better alignment, is used to evaluate the LLMs’ responses. The results show how ALI-Agent performs against existing evaluation methodologies in revealing misalignment.

This table compares the performance of various LLMs on the AdvBench dataset, specifically focusing on the attack success rate (ASR). A lower ASR indicates better alignment with human values. The table shows the ASR for different LLMs across six evaluation settings: Zero-shot, Evasive Sentences, In-Context Attack, Jailbreak Prompts, GPTFuzzer, ALI-Agent, and ALI-Agent combined with GPTFuzzer. This allows for a comparison of how different LLMs and evaluation methods perform in identifying and mitigating harmful instructions.

This table compares the performance of ALI-Agent and a Red LM (a fine-tuned GPT-3.5-turbo-1106 model trained on ALI-Agent’s memory) in terms of model agreeability on the CrowS-Pairs dataset. Model agreeability represents the percentage of times a model agrees with a test scenario containing misconduct; a higher percentage indicates greater misalignment. The table shows the agreeability scores for various LLMs across different evaluation settings. The comparison aims to highlight ALI-Agent’s ability to identify more misalignment cases compared to a simpler red team approach.

This table compares the performance of three different methods for evaluating the alignment of LLMs with human values. The methods are: Rule Match, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and the authors’ proposed method (Ours). The metrics used for comparison are True Positive Rate (TPR), Accuracy, and F1 score. Higher values for TPR, Accuracy, and F1 score indicate better performance. The table shows that the authors’ proposed method outperforms the other three methods in terms of TPR and F1 score, and is comparable to GPT-4 in terms of Accuracy.

This table presents the performance comparison of various LLMs across different evaluation settings on the DecodingTrust and CrowS-Pairs datasets, focusing on the aspect of stereotypes. The metrics used are model agreeability, which reflects the percentage of times a model agrees with a test scenario containing misconduct (lower scores indicate better alignment), and Attack Success Rate (ASR), representing the percentage of times a model follows a harmful instruction. The table compares the results of different prompting methods (Zero-shot, Untargeted System Prompt, Targeted System Prompt, and ALI-Agent).

This table compares the performance of using parametric memory versus textual memory in the ALI-Agent framework. The performance metric used is model agreeability (lower is better), showing the percentage of times a model agrees with a scenario containing misconduct. The table presents the model agreeability scores for several LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Gemini-Pro, ChatGLM3, Vicuna-7B, Vicuna-13B, Vicuna-33B, Llama 2-7B, Llama 2-13B, Llama 2-70B) when using either parametric or textual memory.

Full paper

#