arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2408.12259cs.AI
收藏

你的安全指标有多安全?针对指标可靠性的自动拼接测试

How Safe is Your Safety Metric? Automatic Concatenation Tests for Metric Reliability

IBM Research AI(IBM研究院人工智能部门)

Ora Nova Fandina, Leshem Choshen, Eitan Farchi, George Kour, Yotam Perlitz, Orna Raz

AI总结:

针对安全指标在拼接有害内容时决策反转、对输入顺序敏感的问题,开发自动拼接测试评估其可靠性,发现包括GPT评判器在内的多个指标存在此类不安全行为及评估不一致性。

摘要:

想象这样一个场景:一个用于过滤大型语言模型不安全响应的有害性评估指标,在单独应用于有害的提示-响应对时,会通过分配高风险分数正确标记它们为不安全。然而,若将这些相同的对拼接起来,该指标的决策会意外反转——将组合内容标记为安全且给出低分数,使有害文本绕过过滤器。我们发现多个安全指标(包括基于GPT的评判器等先进指标)都存在这种不安全行为。此外,它们对输入顺序高度敏感:若安全内容先出现,无论后续是否有有害内容,响应常被分类为安全,反之亦然。这些发现强调了评估安全指标安全性(即其输出分数可靠性)的重要性。为此,我们开发了通用、自动的拼接测试来评估这些指标的关键属性。在模型安全场景中应用时,这些测试揭示了有害性评估中存在显著的不一致性。

英文摘要:

Consider a scenario where a harmfulness evaluation metric intended to filter unsafe responses from a Large Language Model. When applied to individual harmful prompt-response pairs, it correctly flags them as unsafe by assigning a high-risk score. Yet, if those same pairs are concatenated, the metrics decision unexpectedly reverses - labelling the combined content as safe with a low score, allowing the harmful text to bypass the filter. We found that multiple safety metrics, including advanced metrics such as GPT-based judges, exhibit this non-safe behaviour. Moreover, they show a strong sensitivity to input order: responses are often classified as safe if safe content appears first, regardless of any harmful content that follows, and vice versa. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating the safety of safety metrics, that is, the reliability of their output scores. To address this, we developed general, automatic, concatenation-based tests to assess key properties of these metrics. When applied in a model safety scenario, the tests revealed significant inconsistencies in harmfulness evaluations.

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。

↑