Yuxia Wang

Many studies have demonstrated that large language models (LLMs) can produce harmful responses, exposing users to unexpected risks. Previous studies have proposed comprehensive taxonomies of LLM risks, as well as corresponding prompts that can be used to examine LLM safety. However, the focus has been almost exclusively on English. We aim to broaden LLM safety research by introducing a dataset for the safety evaluation of Chinese LLMs, and extending it to better identify false negative and false positive examples in terms of risky prompt rejections. We further present a set of fine-grained safety assessment criteria for each risk type, facilitating both manual annotation and automatic evaluation in terms of LLM response harmfulness. Our experiments over five LLMs show that region-specific risks are the prevalent risk type. Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive, harmful, or biased. Our data is available at https://github.com/Libr-AI/do-not-answer.

With the rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs), new and hard-to-predict harmful capabilities are emerging. This requires developers to identify potential risks through the evaluation of “dangerous capabilities” in order to responsibly deploy LLMs. Here we aim to facilitate this process. In particular, we collect an open-source dataset to evaluate the safeguards in LLMs, to facilitate the deployment of safer open-source LLMs at a low cost. Our dataset is curated and filtered to consist only of instructions that responsible language models should not follow. We assess the responses of six popular LLMs to these instructions, and we find that simple BERT-style classifiers can achieve results that are comparable to GPT-4 on automatic safety evaluation. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/Libr-AI/do-not-answer

We present the results and the main findings of SemEval-2024 Task 8: Multigenerator, Multidomain, and Multilingual Machine-Generated Text Detection. The task featured three subtasks. Subtask A is a binary classification task determining whether a text is written by a human or generated by a machine. This subtask has two tracks: a monolingual track focused solely on English texts and a multilingual track. Subtask B is to detect the exact source of a text, discerning whether it is written by a human or generated by a specific LLM. Subtask C aims to identify the changing point within a text, at which the authorship transitions from human to machine. The task attracted a large number of participants: subtask A monolingual (126), subtask A multilingual (59), subtask B (70), and subtask C (30). In this paper, we present the task, analyze the results, and discuss the system submissions and the methods they used. For all subtasks, the best systems used LLMs.

Empathy plays a pivotal role in fostering prosocial behavior, often triggered by the sharing of personal experiences through narratives. However, modeling empathy using NLP approaches remains challenging due to its deep interconnection with human interaction dynamics. Previous approaches, which involve fine-tuning language models (LMs) on human-annotated empathic datasets, have had limited success. In our pursuit of improving empathy understanding in LMs, we propose several strategies, including contrastive learning with masked LMs and supervised fine-tuning with large language models. While these methods show improvements over previous methods, the overall results remain unsatisfactory. To better understand this trend, we performed an analysis which reveals a low agreement among annotators. This lack of consensus hinders training and highlights the subjective nature of the task. We also explore the cultural impact on annotations. To study this, we meticulously collected story pairs in Urdu language and find that subjectivity in interpreting empathy among annotators appears to be independent of cultural background. Our systematic exploration of LMs’ understanding of empathy reveals substantial opportunities for further investigation in both task formulation and modeling.

The increased use of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of real-world applications calls for mechanisms to verify the fac- tual accuracy of their outputs. Difficulties lie in assessing the factuality of free-form responses in open domains. Also, different pa- pers use disparate evaluation benchmarks and measurements, which renders them hard to compare and hampers future progress. To mitigate these issues, we propose OpenFactCheck, a unified framework for building customized automatic fact-checking systems, benchmarking their accuracy, evaluating factuality of LLMs, and verifying claims in a document. OpenFactCheck consists of three modules: (i) CUSTCHECKER allows users to easily customize an automatic fact-checker and verify the factual correctness of documents and claims, (ii) LLMEVAL, a unified evaluation framework assesses LLM’s factuality ability from various perspectives fairly, and (iii) CHECKEREVAL is an extensible solution for gauging the reliability of automatic fact-checkers’ verification results using human-annotated datasets. Data and code are publicly available at https: //github.com/yuxiaw/openfactcheck.