An official website of the United States government
An interesting behavior in large language models (LLMs) is prompt sensitivity. When provided with different but semantically equivalent versions of the same prompt, models may produce very different distributions of answers. This suggests that the uncertainty reflected in a model's output distribution for one prompt may not reflect the model's uncertainty about the meaning of the prompt. We model prompt sensitivity as a type of generalization error, and show that sampling across the semantic concept space with paraphrasing perturbations improves uncertainty calibration without compromising accuracy. Additionally, we introduce a new metric for uncertainty decomposition in black-box LLMs that improves upon entropy-based decomposition by modeling semantic continuities in natural language generation. We show that this decomposition metric can be used to quantify how much LLM uncertainty is attributed to prompt sensitivity. Our work introduces a new way to improve uncertainty calibration in prompt-sensitive language models, and provides evidence that some LLMs fail to exhibit consistent general reasoning about the meanings of their inputs.
more »
« less
Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting
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
- PAR ID:
- 10520219
- Publisher / Repository:
- International Conference on Learning Representations
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Advances in large language models (LLMs) have empowered a variety of applications. However, there is still a significant gap in research when it comes to understanding and enhancing the capabilities of LLMs in the field of mental health. In this work, we present a comprehensive evaluation of multiple LLMs on various mental health prediction tasks via online text data, including Alpaca, Alpaca-LoRA, FLAN-T5, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. We conduct a broad range of experiments, covering zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, and instruction fine-tuning. The results indicate a promising yet limited performance of LLMs with zero-shot and few-shot prompt designs for mental health tasks. More importantly, our experiments show that instruction finetuning can significantly boost the performance of LLMs for all tasks simultaneously. Our best-finetuned models, Mental-Alpaca and Mental-FLAN-T5, outperform the best prompt design of GPT-3.5 (25 and 15 times bigger) by 10.9% on balanced accuracy and the best of GPT-4 (250 and 150 times bigger) by 4.8%. They further perform on par with the state-of-the-art task-specific language model. We also conduct an exploratory case study on LLMs' capability on mental health reasoning tasks, illustrating the promising capability of certain models such as GPT-4. We summarize our findings into a set of action guidelines for potential methods to enhance LLMs' capability for mental health tasks. Meanwhile, we also emphasize the important limitations before achieving deployability in real-world mental health settings, such as known racial and gender bias. We highlight the important ethical risks accompanying this line of research.more » « less
-
Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a popular tool as they have significantly advanced in their capability to tackle a wide range of language-based tasks. However, LLMs applications are highly vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, which poses a critical problem. These attacks target LLMs applications through using carefully designed input prompts to divert the model from adhering to original instruction, thereby it could execute unintended actions. These manipulations pose serious security threats which potentially results in data leaks, biased outputs, or harmful responses. This project explores the security vulnerabilities in relation to prompt injection attacks. To detect whether a prompt is vulnerable or not, we follows two approaches: 1) a pre-trained LLM, and 2) a fine-tuned LLM. Then, we conduct a thorough analysis and comparison of the classification performance. Firstly, we use pre-trained XLMRoBERTa model to detect prompt injections using test dataset without any fine-tuning and evaluate it by zero-shot classification. Then, this proposed work will apply supervised fine-tuning to this pre-trained LLM using a task-specific labeled dataset from deep set in huggingface, and this fine-tuned model achieves impressive results with 99.13% accuracy, 100% precision, 98.33% recall and 99.15% F1-score thorough rigorous experimentation and evaluation. We observe that our approach is highly efficient in detecting prompt injection attacks.more » « less
-
Prompt-tuning is an emerging strategy to adapt large language models (LLM) to downstream tasks by learning a (soft-)prompt parameter from data. Despite its success in LLMs, there is limited theoretical understanding of the power of prompt-tuning and the role of the attention mechanism in prompting. In this work, we explore prompt-tuning for one-layer attention architectures and study contextual mixture-models where each input token belongs to a context-relevant or -irrelevant set. We isolate the role of prompttuning through a self-contained prompt-attention model. Our contributions are as follows: (1) We show that softmax-prompt-attention is provably more expressive than softmax-self-attention and linear-prompt-attention under our contextual data model. (2) We analyze the initial trajectory of gradient descent and show that it learns the prompt and prediction head with near-optimal sample complexity and demonstrate how the prompt can provably attend to sparse context-relevant tokens. (3) Assuming a known prompt but an unknown prediction head, we characterize the exact finite sample performance of prompt-attention which reveals the fundamental performance limits and the precise benefit of the context information. We also provide experiments that verify our theoretical insights on real datasets and demonstrate how prompt-tuning enables the model to attend to context-relevant information.more » « less
-
Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve strong performance on many tasks by producing step-by-step reasoning before giving a final output, often referred to as chain-of-thought reasoning (CoT). It is tempting to interpret these CoT explanations as the LLM’s process for solving a task. This level of transparency into LLMs’ predictions would yield significant safety benefits. However, we find that CoT explanations can systematically misrepresent the true reason for a model’s prediction. We demonstrate that CoT explanations can be heavily influenced by adding biasing features to model inputs—e.g., by reordering the multiple-choice options in a few-shot prompt to make the answer always “(A)”—which models systematically fail to mention in their explanations. When we bias models toward incorrect answers, they frequently generate CoT explanations rationalizing those answers. This causes accuracy to drop by as much as 36% on a suite of 13 tasks from BIG-Bench Hard, when testing with GPT-3.5 from OpenAI and Claude 1.0 from Anthropic. On a social-bias task, model explanations justify giving answers in line with stereotypes without mentioning the influence of these social biases. Our findings indicate that CoT explanations can be plausible yet misleading, which risks increasing our trust in LLMs without guaranteeing their safety. Building more transparent and explainable systems will require either improving CoT faithfulness through targeted efforts or abandoning CoT in favor of alternative methods.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
