Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

TroubleLLM: Align to Red Team Expert (2403.00829v1)

Published 28 Feb 2024 in cs.AI and cs.CL

Abstract: LLMs become the start-of-the-art solutions for a variety of natural language tasks and are integrated into real-world applications. However, LLMs can be potentially harmful in manifesting undesirable safety issues like social biases and toxic content. It is imperative to assess its safety issues before deployment. However, the quality and diversity of test prompts generated by existing methods are still far from satisfactory. Not only are these methods labor-intensive and require large budget costs, but the controllability of test prompt generation is lacking for the specific testing domain of LLM applications. With the idea of LLM for LLM testing, we propose the first LLM, called TroubleLLM, to generate controllable test prompts on LLM safety issues. Extensive experiments and human evaluation illustrate the superiority of TroubleLLM on generation quality and generation controllability.

PDF HTML Abstract

Introducing TroubleLLM: Automated Generation of Test Prompts for LLM Safety Assessment

Background and Motivation

LLMs have permeated various sectors, bringing significant improvements in natural language processing tasks. However, their application is not without challenges, particularly regarding safety issues such as the propagation of social biases and the production of toxic content. Addressing these problems is critical, especially in sensitive domains like healthcare and legal systems. Traditional methods for testing LLM safety have relied heavily on human annotators and template-based approaches, posing limitations in terms of labor intensity, cost, and lack of diversity. There is a notable gap in the generation of diverse, domain-specific test prompts that can comprehensively explore the potential safety risks associated with LLMs.

TroubleLLM: Key Contributions

The paper introduces TroubleLLM, a novel approach to generating controllable test prompts aimed at assessing LLM safety issues efficiently. This method stands out by offering a solution that enables the generation of diverse, controllable test prompts that can navigate the complexities of LLMs' safety assessments. The contributions of this work are threefold:

  • It presents TroubleLLM as the pioneering effort in leveraging an LLM (the model itself) for generating test prompts tailored for LLM safety assessment, marking a significant stride towards automating safety evaluations.
  • TroubleLLM utilizes a text style transfer task, with conditions such as keywords, topics, and instruction methods, to guide prompt generation. This approach enhances in-context learning capabilities and meets specific generation requirements. Moreover, the paper introduces an Unsupervised Rank Query from Model Feedback (RQMF) training strategy, refining the model's focus on generating more impactful test prompts.
  • The effectiveness and controllability of TroubleLLM are proven through extensive experiments and human evaluations. These illustrate that the model outperforms existing methods in generating high-quality, controllable prompts.

Underlying Methodology

TroubleLLM operates on a principle of condition-guided generation, utilizing keywords, topics, and instruction attacks as conditions for prompt generation. This method enables the creation of targeted prompts that can better mimic potential safety issues LLMs might encounter in real-world applications. To train TroubleLLM effectively, the authors propose an unsupervised training strategy — RQMF — which leverages model feedback to enhance the model's ability to generate misleading prompts, consequently improving the tool's effectiveness in identifying vulnerabilities within LLMs.

Implications and Future Directions

The development of TroubleLLM marks a significant advancement in the assessment of LLM safety, providing a scalable, efficient, and controllable means of generating test prompts. This has practical implications across various domains where LLMs are deployed, empowering developers and researchers to better safeguard against the propagation of biases and toxic content.

Looking ahead, there is potential to further refine the methodology by exploring advanced strategies for model feedback and expanding the model's capability to generate prompts across an even wider spectrum of contexts and languages. Additionally, integrating TroubleLLM with domain-specific LLMs could offer new avenues for targeted safety assessments, addressing the nuanced challenges inherent in specialized applications.

In conclusion, TroubleLLM represents a promising step forward in our ability to probe and enhance the safety of LLMs. As LLMs continue to evolve and find new applications, tools like TroubleLLM will be crucial in ensuring that these powerful models can be deployed responsibly and safely.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown Bookmark Chat Bubble Oval Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Chat (Pro)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901.
  2. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374.
  3. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  4. RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3356–3369, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  5. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685.
  6. Perplexity—a measure of the difficulty of speech recognition tasks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62(S1):S63–S63.
  7. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1–38.
  8. Measuring bias in contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, pages 166–172, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  9. Towards understanding and mitigating social biases in language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6565–6576. PMLR.
  10. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26.
  11. StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5356–5371, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. ArXiv, abs/2303.08774.
  13. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730–27744.
  14. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  15. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training.
  16. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  17. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485–5551.
  18. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. Making monolingual sentence embeddings multilingual using knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  19. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100.
  20. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3407–3412, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13138.
  22. Safety assessment of chinese large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10436.
  23. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.
  24. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682.
  25. Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback without tears. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05302.
  26. Yan Gong Yunjie Ji, Yong Deng and Xiangang Li. 2023. Belle: Be everyone’s large language model engine. https://github.com/LianjiaTech/BELLE.
  27. Glm-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02414.
  28. Is neural topic modelling better than clustering? an empirical study on clustering with contextual embeddings for topics. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3886–3893, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  29. Texygen: A benchmarking platform for text generation models. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval, pages 1097–1100.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Zhuoer Xu (15 papers)
  2. Jianping Zhang (49 papers)
  3. Shiwen Cui (7 papers)
  4. Changhua Meng (27 papers)
  5. Weiqiang Wang (171 papers)
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar