Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for accessing information on the web. Their truthfulness and factuality are thus of great interest. To help users make the right decisions about the information they get, LLMs should not only provide information but also help users fact-check it. Our experiments with 80 crowdworkers compare language models with search engines (information retrieval systems) at facilitating fact-checking. We prompt LLMs to validate a given claim and provide corresponding explanations. Users reading LLM explanations are significantly more efficient than those using search engines while achieving similar accuracy. However, they over-rely on the LLMs when the explanation is wrong. To reduce over-reliance on LLMs, we ask LLMs to provide contrastive information - explain both why the claim is true and false, and then we present both sides of the explanation to users. This contrastive explanation mitigates users' over-reliance on LLMs, but cannot significantly outperform search engines. Further, showing both search engine results and LLM explanations offers no complementary benefits compared to search engines alone. Taken together, our study highlights that natural language explanations by LLMs may not be a reliable replacement for reading the retrieved passages, especially in high-stakes settings where over-relying on wrong AI explanations could lead to critical consequences.
more »
« less
The Importance of Prompt Tuning for Automated Neuron Explanations
Recent advances have greatly increased the capabilities of large language models
(LLMs), but our understanding of the models and their safety has not progressed as
fast. In this paper we aim to understand LLMs deeper by studying their individual
neurons. We build upon previous work showing large language models such as
GPT-4 can be useful in explaining what each neuron in a language model does.
Specifically, we analyze the effect of the prompt used to generate explanations
and show that reformatting the explanation prompt in a more natural way can
significantly improve neuron explanation quality and greatly reduce computational
cost. We demonstrate the effects of our new prompts in three different ways,
incorporating both automated and human evaluations.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2107189
- PAR ID:
- 10518467
- Publisher / Repository:
- NeurIPS 2023 Attrib workshop
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
As large language models (LLMs) are adopted as a fundamental component of language technologies, it is crucial to accurately characterize their performance. Because choices in prompt design can strongly influence model behavior, this design process is critical in effectively using any modern pre-trained generative language model. In this work, we focus on LLM sensitivity to a quintessential class of meaning-preserving design choices: prompt formatting. We find that several widely used open-source LLMs are extremely sensitive to subtle changes in prompt formatting in few-shot settings, with performance differences of up to 76 accuracy points when evaluated using LLaMA-2-13B. Sensitivity remains even when increasing model size, the number of few-shot examples, or performing instruction tuning. Our analysis suggests that work evaluating LLMs with prompting-based methods would benefit from reporting a range of performance across plausible prompt formats, instead of the currently-standard practice of reporting performance on a single format. We also show that format performance only weakly correlates between models, which puts into question the methodological validity of comparing models with an arbitrarily chosen, fixed prompt format. To facilitate systematic analysis we propose FormatSpread, an algorithm that rapidly evaluates a sampled set of plausible prompt formats for a given task, and reports the interval of expected performance without accessing model weights. Furthermore, we present a suite of analyses that characterize the nature of this sensitivity, including exploring the influence of particular atomic perturbations and the internal representation of particular formats.more » « less
-
This paper systematically investigates the generation of code explanations by Large Language Models (LLMs) for code examples commonly encountered in introductory programming courses. Our findings reveal significant variations in the nature of code explanations produced by LLMs, influenced by factors such as the wording of the prompt, the specific code examples under consideration, the programming language involved, the temperature parameter, and the version of the LLM. However, a consistent pattern emerges for Java and Python, where explanations exhibit a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of approximately 7-8 grade and a consistent lexical density, indicating the proportion of meaningful words relative to the total explanation size. Additionally, the generated explanations consistently achieve high scores for correctness, but lower scores on three other metrics: completeness, conciseness, and specificity.more » « less
-
This paper systematically investigates the generation of code explanations by Large Language Models (LLMs) for code examples commonly encountered in introductory programming courses. Our findings reveal significant variations in the nature of code explanations produced by LLMs, influenced by factors such as the wording of the prompt, the specific code examples under consideration, the programming language involved, the temperature parameter, and the version of the LLM. However, a consistent pattern emerges for Java and Python, where ex- planations exhibit a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of approximately 7-8 grade and a consistent lexical density, indicating the proportion of meaningful words relative to the total explanation size. Additionally, the generated explanations consistently achieve high scores for correctness, but lower scores on three other metrics: completeness, conciseness, and specificity.more » « less
-
This paper systematically explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) generate explanations of code examples of the type used in intro-to-programming courses. As we show, the nature of code explanations generated by LLMs varies considerably based on the wording of the prompt, the target code examples being explained, the programming language, the temperature parameter, and the version of the LLM. Nevertheless, they are consistent in two major respects for Java and Python: the readability level, which hovers around 7-8 grade, and lexical density, i.e., the relative size of the meaninful words with respect to the total explanation size. Furthermore, the explanations score very high in correctness but less on three other metrics: completeness, conciseness, and contextualization.more » « less
