As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly prevalent, concerns about their reliability, particularly due to hallucinations - factually inaccurate or irrelevant outputs - have grown. Our research investigates the relationship between the uncertainty in training dynamics and the emergence of hallucinations. Using models from the Pythia suite and several hallucination detection metrics, we analyze hallucination trends and identify significant variance during training. To address this, we propose Sensitivity Dropout (SenD), a novel training protocol designed to reduce hallucination variance during training by deterministically dropping embedding indices with significant variability. In addition, we develop an unsupervised hallucination detection metric, Efficient EigenScore (EES), which approximates the traditional EigenScore in 2x speed. This metric is integrated into our training protocol, allowing SenD to be both computationally scalable and effective at reducing hallucination variance. SenD improves test-time reliability of Pythia and Meta’s Llama models by up to 17% and enhances factual accuracy in Wikipedia, Medical, Legal, and Coding domains without affecting downstream task performance.

In an effort to mitigate the harms of large language models (LLMs), learning from human feedback (LHF) has been used to steer LLMs towards outputs that are intended to be both less harmful and more helpful. Despite the widespread adoption of LHF in practice, the quality of this feedback and its effectiveness as a safety mitigation technique remain unclear. This study addresses these issues by auditing the widely-used Helpful and Harmless (HH) dataset by Anthropic. Our work includes: (1) a thorough investigation of the dataset’s content through both manual and automated evaluation; (2) experiments demonstrating the dataset’s impact on models’ safety; and (3) an analysis of the 100 most influential papers citing this dataset. Through our audit, we showcase how conceptualization failures and quality issues identified in the HH dataset can create additional harms by leading to disparate safety behaviors across demographic groups. Our findings highlight the need for more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to safety mitigation in LLMs.

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has led to their widespread adoption in various domains. However, these advancements have also introduced additional safety risks and raised concerns regarding their detrimental impact on already marginalized populations.Despite growing mitigation efforts to develop safety safeguards, such as supervised safety-oriented fine-tuning and leveraging safe reinforcement learning from human feedback, multiple concerns regarding the safety and ingrained biases in these models remain. Furthermore, previous work has demonstrated that models optimized for safety often display exaggerated safety behaviors, such as a tendency to refrain from responding to certain requests as a precautionary measure. As such, a clear trade-off between the helpfulness and safety of these models has been documented in the literature. In this paper, we further investigate the effectiveness of safety measures by evaluating models on already mitigated biases. Using the case of Llama 2 as an example, we illustrate how LLMs’ safety responses can still encode harmful assumptions. To do so, we create a set of non-toxic prompts, which we then use to evaluate Llama models. Through our new taxonomy of LLMs responses to users, we observe that the safety/helpfulness trade-offs are more pronounced for certain demographic groups which can lead to different kinds of harms such as quality-of-service harms for marginalized populations.