Daily Papers

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

Deep neural network models are used today in various applications of artificial intelligence, the strengthening of which, in the face of adversarial attacks is of particular importance. An appropriate solution to adversarial attacks is adversarial training, which reaches a trade-off between robustness and generalization. This paper introduces a novel framework (Layer Sustainability Analysis (LSA)) for the analysis of layer vulnerability in an arbitrary neural network in the scenario of adversarial attacks. LSA can be a helpful toolkit to assess deep neural networks and to extend the adversarial training approaches towards improving the sustainability of model layers via layer monitoring and analysis. The LSA framework identifies a list of Most Vulnerable Layers (MVL list) of the given network. The relative error, as a comparison measure, is used to evaluate representation sustainability of each layer against adversarial inputs. The proposed approach for obtaining robust neural networks to fend off adversarial attacks is based on a layer-wise regularization (LR) over LSA proposal(s) for adversarial training (AT); i.e. the AT-LR procedure. AT-LR could be used with any benchmark adversarial attack to reduce the vulnerability of network layers and to improve conventional adversarial training approaches. The proposed idea performs well theoretically and experimentally for state-of-the-art multilayer perceptron and convolutional neural network architectures. Compared with the AT-LR and its corresponding base adversarial training, the classification accuracy of more significant perturbations increased by 16.35%, 21.79%, and 10.730% on Moon, MNIST, and CIFAR-10 benchmark datasets, respectively. The LSA framework is available and published at https://github.com/khalooei/LSA.