Towards Safe and Aligned Large Language Models for Medicine

The capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have been progressing at a breathtaking speed, leaving even their own developers grappling with the depth of their potential and risks. While initial steps have been taken to evaluate the safety and alignment of general-knowledge LLMs, exposing some weaknesses, to our knowledge, the safety and alignment of medical LLMs has not been evaluated despite their risks for personal health and safety, public health and safety, and human rights. To this end, we carry out the first safety evaluation for medical LLMs. Specifically, we set forth a definition of medical safety and alignment for medical artificial intelligence systems, develop a dataset of harmful medical questions to evaluate the medical safety and alignment of an LLM, evaluate both general and medical safety and alignment of medical LLMs, demonstrate fine-tuning as an effective mitigation strategy, and discuss broader, large-scale approaches used by the machine learning community to develop safe and aligned LLMs. We hope that this work casts light on the safety and alignment of medical LLMs and motivates future work to study it and develop additional mitigation strategies, minimizing the risks of harm of LLMs in medicine.

Understanding the Effects of Iterative Prompting on Truthfulness

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has notably transformed numerous sectors, offering impressive text generation capabilities. Yet, the reliability and truthfulness of these models remain pressing concerns. To this end, we investigate iterative prompting, a strategy hypothesized to refine LLM responses, assessing its impact on LLM truthfulness, an area which has not been thoroughly explored. Our extensive experiments delve into the intricacies of iterative prompting variants, examining their influence on the accuracy and calibration of model responses. Our findings reveal that naive prompting methods significantly undermine truthfulness, leading to exacerbated calibration errors. In response to these challenges, we introduce several prompting variants designed to address the identified issues. These variants demonstrate marked improvements over existing baselines, signaling a promising direction for future research. Our work provides a nuanced understanding of iterative prompting and introduces novel approaches to enhance the truthfulness of LLMs, thereby contributing to the development of more accurate and trustworthy AI systems.

Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as powerful tools for several natural language processing (NLP) applications. Recent works show that modern LLMs can generate self-explanations (SEs), which elicit their intermediate reasoning steps for explaining their behavior. Self-explanations have seen widespread adoption owing to their conversational and plausible nature. However, there is little to no understanding of their faithfulness. In this work, we discuss the dichotomy between faithfulness and plausibility in SEs generated by LLMs. We argue that while LLMs are adept at generating plausible explanations -- seemingly logical and coherent to human users -- these explanations do not necessarily align with the reasoning processes of the LLMs, raising concerns about their faithfulness. We highlight that the current trend towards increasing the plausibility of explanations, primarily driven by the demand for user-friendly interfaces, may come at the cost of diminishing their faithfulness. We assert that the faithfulness of explanations is critical in LLMs employed for high-stakes decision-making. Moreover, we urge the community to identify the faithfulness requirements of real-world applications and ensure explanations meet those needs. Finally, we propose some directions for future work, emphasizing the need for novel methodologies and frameworks that can enhance the faithfulness of self-explanations without compromising their plausibility, essential for the transparent deployment of LLMs in diverse high-stakes domains.

Quantifying Uncertainty in Natural Language Explanations of Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as powerful tools for several high-stakes natural language processing (NLP) applications. Recent prompting works claim to elicit intermediate reasoning steps and key tokens that serve as proxy explanations for LLM predictions. However, there is no certainty whether these explanations are reliable and reflect the LLMs behavior. In this work, we make one of the first attempts at quantifying the uncertainty in explanations of LLMs. To this end, we propose two novel metrics -- $\textit{Verbalized Uncertainty}$ and $\textit{Probing Uncertainty}$ -- to quantify the uncertainty of generated explanations. While verbalized uncertainty involves prompting the LLM to express its confidence in its explanations, probing uncertainty leverages sample and model perturbations as a means to quantify the uncertainty. Our empirical analysis of benchmark datasets reveals that verbalized uncertainty is not a reliable estimate of explanation confidence. Further, we show that the probing uncertainty estimates are correlated with the faithfulness of an explanation, with lower uncertainty corresponding to explanations with higher faithfulness. Our study provides insights into the challenges and opportunities of quantifying uncertainty in LLM explanations, contributing to the broader discussion of the trustworthiness of foundation models.

Are Large Language Models Post Hoc Explainers?

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as powerful tools for a plethora of natural language processing (NLP) applications. A recent innovation, in-context learning (ICL), enables LLMs to learn new tasks by supplying a few examples in the prompt during inference time, thereby eliminating the need for model fine-tuning. While LLMs have been utilized in several applications, their applicability in explaining the behavior of other models remains relatively unexplored. Despite the growing number of new explanation techniques, many require white-box access to the model and/or are computationally expensive, highlighting a need for next-generation post hoc explainers. In this work, we present the first framework to study the effectiveness of LLMs in explaining other predictive models. More specifically, we propose a novel framework encompassing multiple prompting strategies: i) Perturbation-based ICL, ii) Prediction-based ICL, iii) Instruction-based ICL, and iv) Explanation-based ICL, with varying levels of information about the underlying ML model and the local neighborhood of the test sample. We conduct extensive experiments with real-world benchmark datasets to demonstrate that LLM-generated explanations perform on par with state-of-the-art post hoc explainers using their ability to leverage ICL examples and their internal knowledge in generating model explanations. On average, across four datasets and two ML models, we observe that LLMs identify the most important feature with 72.19% accuracy, opening up new frontiers in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to explore LLM-based explanation frameworks.

On the Trade-offs between Adversarial Robustness and Actionable Explanations

As machine learning models are increasingly being employed in various high-stakes settings, it becomes important to ensure that predictions of these models are not only adversarially robust, but also readily explainable to relevant stakeholders. However, it is unclear if these two notions can be simultaneously achieved or if there exist trade-offs between them. In this work, we make one of the first attempts at studying the impact of adversarially robust models on actionable explanations which provide end users with a means for recourse. We theoretically and empirically analyze the cost (ease of implementation) and validity (probability of obtaining a positive model prediction) of recourses output by state-of-the-art algorithms when the underlying models are adversarially robust vs. non-robust. More specifically, we derive theoretical bounds on the differences between the cost and the validity of the recourses generated by state-of-the-art algorithms for adversarially robust vs. non-robust linear and non-linear models. Our empirical results with multiple real-world datasets validate our theoretical results and show the impact of varying degrees of model robustness on the cost and validity of the resulting recourses. Our analyses demonstrate that adversarially robust models significantly increase the cost and reduce the validity of the resulting recourses, thus shedding light on the inherent trade-offs between adversarial robustness and actionable explanations

Certifying LLM Safety against Adversarial Prompting

Large language models (LLMs) released for public use incorporate guardrails to ensure their output is safe, often referred to as "model alignment." An aligned language model should decline a user's request to produce harmful content. However, such safety measures are vulnerable to adversarial prompts, which contain maliciously designed token sequences to circumvent the model's safety guards and cause it to produce harmful content. In this work, we introduce erase-and-check, the first framework to defend against adversarial prompts with verifiable safety guarantees. We erase tokens individually and inspect the resulting subsequences using a safety filter. Our procedure labels the input prompt as harmful if any subsequences or the input prompt are detected as harmful by the filter. This guarantees that any adversarial modification of a harmful prompt up to a certain size is also labeled harmful. We defend against three attack modes: i) adversarial suffix, which appends an adversarial sequence at the end of the prompt; ii) adversarial insertion, where the adversarial sequence is inserted anywhere in the middle of the prompt; and iii) adversarial infusion, where adversarial tokens are inserted at arbitrary positions in the prompt, not necessarily as a contiguous block. Empirical results demonstrate that our technique obtains strong certified safety guarantees on harmful prompts while maintaining good performance on safe prompts. For example, against adversarial suffixes of length 20, it certifiably detects 93% of the harmful prompts and labels 94% of the safe prompts as safe using the open source language model Llama 2 as the safety filter.

Counterfactual Explanation Policies in RL

As Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents are increasingly employed in diverse decision-making problems using reward preferences, it becomes important to ensure that policies learned by these frameworks in mapping observations to a probability distribution of the possible actions are explainable. However, there is little to no work in the systematic understanding of these complex policies in a contrastive manner, i.e., what minimal changes to the policy would improve/worsen its performance to a desired level. In this work, we present COUNTERPOL, the first framework to analyze RL policies using counterfactual explanations in the form of minimal changes to the policy that lead to the desired outcome. We do so by incorporating counterfactuals in supervised learning in RL with the target outcome regulated using desired return. We establish a theoretical connection between Counterpol and widely used trust region-based policy optimization methods in RL. Extensive empirical analysis shows the efficacy of COUNTERPOL in generating explanations for (un)learning skills while keeping close to the original policy. Our results on five different RL environments with diverse state and action spaces demonstrate the utility of counterfactual explanations, paving the way for new frontiers in designing and developing counterfactual policies.

Explaining RL Decisions with Trajectories

Explanation is a key component for the adoption of reinforcement learning (RL) in many real-world decision-making problems. In the literature, the explanation is often provided by saliency attribution to the features of the RL agent's state. In this work, we propose a complementary approach to these explanations, particularly for offline RL, where we attribute the policy decisions of a trained RL agent to the trajectories encountered by it during training. To do so, we encode trajectories in offline training data individually as well as collectively (encoding a set of trajectories). We then attribute policy decisions to a set of trajectories in this encoded space by estimating the sensitivity of the decision with respect to that set. Further, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach in terms of quality of attributions as well as practical scalability in diverse environments that involve both discrete and continuous state and action spaces such as grid-worlds, video games (Atari) and continuous control (MuJoCo). We also conduct a human study on a simple navigation task to observe how their understanding of the task compares with data attributed for a trained RL policy. Keywords -- Explainable AI, Verifiability of AI Decisions, Explainable RL.

Explain like I am BM25: Interpreting a Dense Model's Ranked-List with a Sparse Approximation

Neural retrieval models (NRMs) have been shown to outperform their statistical counterparts owing to their ability to capture semantic meaning via dense document representations. These models, however, suffer from poor interpretability as they do not rely on explicit term matching. As a form of local per-query explanations, we introduce the notion of equivalent queries that are generated by maximizing the similarity between the NRM's results and the result set of a sparse retrieval system with the equivalent query. We then compare this approach with existing methods such as RM3-based query expansion and contrast differences in retrieval effectiveness and in the terms generated by each approach.