arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2402.11296cs.CLcs.AI
收藏

剖析人类与LLM偏好

Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences

Hong Kong Polytechnic University(香港理工大学);Shanghai Jiao Tong University(上海交通大学);Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory(上海人工智能实验室)

Junlong Li, Fan Zhou, Shichao Sun, Yikai Zhang, Hai Zhao, Pengfei Liu

AI总结:

本研究剖析了人类与32个LLM的偏好构成,发现两者对错误、立场支持等维度存在显著差异,且基于偏好的评估可被策略性操纵,导致MT-Bench和AlpacaEval 2.0分数大幅波动。

摘要:

作为模型响应的相对质量比较,人类和大型语言模型(LLM)偏好常被用作模型微调的对齐目标和评估准则。然而,这些偏好仅反映了宽泛的倾向,导致模型可解释性与可控性降低,并带来潜在安全风险。本研究剖析了人类和32个不同LLM的偏好,以理解其定量构成,利用真实用户-模型对话的标注进行细粒度的场景化分析。我们发现,人类对错误较不敏感,偏好支持其立场的回复,并在模型承认自身局限时表现出明显的反感。相反,像GPT-4-Turbo这样的先进LLM更强调正确性、清晰度和无害性。此外,相似规模的LLM往往表现出相似的偏好,无论其训练方法如何;针对对齐的微调并未显著改变仅预训练LLM的偏好。最后,我们表明基于偏好的评估可被故意操纵。在免训练和基于训练的设置中,使模型与评估者的偏好对齐会提升分数,而注入最不偏好的属性则会降低分数。这导致了显著的分数变化:在MT-Bench(1-10分制)上最高达0.59,在AlpacaEval 2.0(0-100分制)上最高达31.94,凸显了这种策略性适应的重大影响。交互式演示:https://huggingface.co/spaces/GAIR/Preference-Dissection-Visualization 数据集:https://huggingface.co/datasets/GAIR/preference-dissection 代码:https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/Preference-Dissection

英文摘要:

As a relative quality comparison of model responses, human and Large Language Model (LLM) preferences serve as common alignment goals in model fine-tuning and criteria in evaluation. Yet, these preferences merely reflect broad tendencies, resulting in less explainable and controllable models with potential safety risks. In this work, we dissect the preferences of human and 32 different LLMs to understand their quantitative composition, using annotations from real-world user-model conversations for a fine-grained, scenario-wise analysis. We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. On the contrary, advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. Additionally, LLMs of similar sizes tend to exhibit similar preferences, regardless of their training methods, and fine-tuning for alignment does not significantly alter the preferences of pretrained-only LLMs. Finally, we show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated. In both training-free and training-based settings, aligning a model with the preferences of judges boosts scores, while injecting the least preferred properties lowers them. This results in notable score shifts: up to 0.59 on MT-Bench (1-10 scale) and 31.94 on AlpacaEval 2.0 (0-100 scale), highlighting the significant impact of this strategic adaptation. Interactive Demo: https://huggingface.co/spaces/GAIR/Preference-Dissection-Visualization Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/GAIR/preference-dissection Code: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/Preference-Dissection

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑