When in Doubt, Cascade: Towards Building Efficient and Capable Guardrails

Large language models (LLMs) have convincing performance in a variety of downstream tasks. However, these systems are prone to generating undesirable outputs such as harmful and biased text. In order to remedy such generations, the development of guardrail (or detector) models has gained traction. Motivated by findings from developing a detector for social bias, we adopt the notion of a use-mention distinction - which we identified as the primary source of under-performance in the preliminary versions of our social bias detector. Armed with this information, we describe a fully extensible and reproducible synthetic data generation pipeline which leverages taxonomy-driven instructions to create targeted and labeled data. Using this pipeline, we generate over 300K unique contrastive samples and provide extensive experiments to systematically evaluate performance on a suite of open source datasets. We show that our method achieves competitive performance with a fraction of the cost in compute and offers insight into iteratively developing efficient and capable guardrail models. Warning: This paper contains examples of text which are toxic, biased, and potentially harmful.

WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs), such as hallucinations and outdated information. However, it remains unclear how LLMs handle knowledge conflicts arising from different augmented retrieved passages, especially when these passages originate from the same source and have equal trustworthiness. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions that have varying answers based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia, a dataset widely regarded as a high-quality pre-training resource for most LLMs. Specifically, we introduce WikiContradict, a benchmark consisting of 253 high-quality, human-annotated instances designed to assess LLM performance when augmented with retrieved passages containing real-world knowledge conflicts. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages. Through rigorous human evaluations on a subset of WikiContradict instances involving 5 LLMs and over 3,500 judgements, we shed light on the behaviour and limitations of these models. For instance, when provided with two passages containing contradictory facts, all models struggle to generate answers that accurately reflect the conflicting nature of the context, especially for implicit conflicts requiring reasoning. Since human evaluation is costly, we also introduce an automated model that estimates LLM performance using a strong open-source language model, achieving an F-score of 0.8. Using this automated metric, we evaluate more than 1,500 answers from seven LLMs across all WikiContradict instances. To facilitate future work, we release WikiContradict on: https://ibm.biz/wikicontradict.

Interventional Causal Discovery in a Mixture of DAGs

Causal interactions among a group of variables are often modeled by a single causal graph. In some domains, however, these interactions are best described by multiple co-existing causal graphs, e.g., in dynamical systems or genomics. This paper addresses the hitherto unknown role of interventions in learning causal interactions among variables governed by a mixture of causal systems, each modeled by one directed acyclic graph (DAG). Causal discovery from mixtures is fundamentally more challenging than single-DAG causal discovery. Two major difficulties stem from (i) inherent uncertainty about the skeletons of the component DAGs that constitute the mixture and (ii) possibly cyclic relationships across these component DAGs. This paper addresses these challenges and aims to identify edges that exist in at least one component DAG of the mixture, referred to as true edges. First, it establishes matching necessary and sufficient conditions on the size of interventions required to identify the true edges. Next, guided by the necessity results, an adaptive algorithm is designed that learns all true edges using ${\cal O}(n^2)$ interventions, where $n$ is the number of nodes. Remarkably, the size of the interventions is optimal if the underlying mixture model does not contain cycles across its components. More generally, the gap between the intervention size used by the algorithm and the optimal size is quantified. It is shown to be bounded by the cyclic complexity number of the mixture model, defined as the size of the minimal intervention that can break the cycles in the mixture, which is upper bounded by the number of cycles among the ancestors of a node.

Large Language Model Confidence Estimation via Black-Box Access

Estimating uncertainty or confidence in the responses of a model can be significant in evaluating trust not only in the responses, but also in the model as a whole. In this paper, we explore the problem of estimating confidence for responses of large language models (LLMs) with simply black-box or query access to them. We propose a simple and extensible framework where, we engineer novel features and train a (interpretable) model (viz. logistic regression) on these features to estimate the confidence. We empirically demonstrate that our simple framework is effective in estimating confidence of flan-ul2, llama-13b and mistral-7b with it consistently outperforming existing black-box confidence estimation approaches on benchmark datasets such as TriviaQA, SQuAD, CoQA and Natural Questions by even over $10\%$ (on AUROC) in some cases. Additionally, our interpretable approach provides insight into features that are predictive of confidence, leading to the interesting and useful discovery that our confidence models built for one LLM generalize zero-shot across others on a given dataset.

Facilitating Human-LLM Collaboration through Factuality Scores and Source Attributions

While humans increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs), they are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, also known as "hallucinations". Technical advancements have been made in algorithms that detect hallucinated content by assessing the factuality of the model's responses and attributing sections of those responses to specific source documents. However, there is limited research on how to effectively communicate this information to users in ways that will help them appropriately calibrate their trust toward LLMs. To address this issue, we conducted a scenario-based study (N=104) to systematically compare the impact of various design strategies for communicating factuality and source attribution on participants' ratings of trust, preferences, and ease in validating response accuracy. Our findings reveal that participants preferred a design in which phrases within a response were color-coded based on the computed factuality scores. Additionally, participants increased their trust ratings when relevant sections of the source material were highlighted or responses were annotated with reference numbers corresponding to those sources, compared to when they received no annotation in the source material. Our study offers practical design guidelines to facilitate human-LLM collaboration and it promotes a new human role to carefully evaluate and take responsibility for their use of LLM outputs.

The RealHumanEval: Evaluating Large Language Models' Abilities to Support Programmers

Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) for code has primarily relied on static benchmarks, including HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), which measure the ability of LLMs to generate complete code that passes unit tests. As LLMs are increasingly used as programmer assistants, we study whether gains on existing benchmarks translate to gains in programmer productivity when coding with LLMs, including time spent coding. In addition to static benchmarks, we investigate the utility of preference metrics that might be used as proxies to measure LLM helpfulness, such as code acceptance or copy rates. To do so, we introduce RealHumanEval, a web interface to measure the ability of LLMs to assist programmers, through either autocomplete or chat support. We conducted a user study (N=213) using RealHumanEval in which users interacted with six LLMs of varying base model performance. Despite static benchmarks not incorporating humans-in-the-loop, we find that improvements in benchmark performance lead to increased programmer productivity; however gaps in benchmark versus human performance are not proportional -- a trend that holds across both forms of LLM support. In contrast, we find that programmer preferences do not correlate with their actual performance, motivating the need for better, human-centric proxy signals. We also open-source RealHumanEval to enable human-centric evaluation of new models and the study data to facilitate efforts to improve code models.

Language Models in Dialogue: Conversational Maxims for Human-AI Interactions

Modern language models, while sophisticated, exhibit some inherent shortcomings, particularly in conversational settings. We claim that many of the observed shortcomings can be attributed to violation of one or more conversational principles. By drawing upon extensive research from both the social science and AI communities, we propose a set of maxims -- quantity, quality, relevance, manner, benevolence, and transparency -- for describing effective human-AI conversation. We first justify the applicability of the first four maxims (from Grice) in the context of human-AI interactions. We then argue that two new maxims, benevolence (concerning the generation of, and engagement with, harmful content) and transparency (concerning recognition of one's knowledge boundaries, operational constraints, and intents), are necessary for addressing behavior unique to modern human-AI interactions. The proposed maxims offer prescriptive guidance on how to assess conversational quality between humans and LLM-driven conversational agents, informing both their evaluation and improved design.

Multi-Level Explanations for Generative Language Models

Perturbation-based explanation methods such as LIME and SHAP are commonly applied to text classification. This work focuses on their extension to generative language models. To address the challenges of text as output and long text inputs, we propose a general framework called MExGen that can be instantiated with different attribution algorithms. To handle text output, we introduce the notion of scalarizers for mapping text to real numbers and investigate multiple possibilities. To handle long inputs, we take a multi-level approach, proceeding from coarser levels of granularity to finer ones, and focus on algorithms with linear scaling in model queries. We conduct a systematic evaluation, both automated and human, of perturbation-based attribution methods for summarization and context-grounded question answering. The results show that our framework can provide more locally faithful explanations of generated outputs.

Contextual Moral Value Alignment Through Context-Based Aggregation

Developing value-aligned AI agents is a complex undertaking and an ongoing challenge in the field of AI. Specifically within the domain of Large Language Models (LLMs), the capability to consolidate multiple independently trained dialogue agents, each aligned with a distinct moral value, into a unified system that can adapt to and be aligned with multiple moral values is of paramount importance. In this paper, we propose a system that does contextual moral value alignment based on contextual aggregation. Here, aggregation is defined as the process of integrating a subset of LLM responses that are best suited to respond to a user input, taking into account features extracted from the user's input. The proposed system shows better results in term of alignment to human value compared to the state of the art.

Detectors for Safe and Reliable LLMs: Implementations, Uses, and Limitations

Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to a variety of risks, from non-faithful output to biased and toxic generations. Due to several limiting factors surrounding LLMs (training cost, API access, data availability, etc.), it may not always be feasible to impose direct safety constraints on a deployed model. Therefore, an efficient and reliable alternative is required. To this end, we present our ongoing efforts to create and deploy a library of detectors: compact and easy-to-build classification models that provide labels for various harms. In addition to the detectors themselves, we discuss a wide range of uses for these detector models - from acting as guardrails to enabling effective AI governance. We also deep dive into inherent challenges in their development and discuss future work aimed at making the detectors more reliable and broadening their scope.