To deploy language models safely, it is crucial that they abstain from responding to inappropriate requests. Several prior studies test the safety promises of models based on their effectiveness in blocking malicious requests. In this work, we focus on evaluating the underlying techniques that cause models to abstain. We create ‘SELECT‘, a benchmark derived from a set of benign concepts (e.g., “rivers”) from a knowledge graph. Focusing on benign concepts isolates the effect of safety training, and grounding these concepts in a knowledge graph allows us to study the *generalization* and *specificity* of abstention techniques. Using ‘SELECT‘, we benchmark different abstention techniques over six open-weight and closed-source models. We find that the examined techniques indeed cause models to abstain with over 80% abstention rates. However, these techniques are not as effective for descendants of the target concepts, where abstention rates drop by 19%. We also characterize the generalization-specificity trade-offs for different techniques. Overall, no single technique is invariably better than others, and our findings inform practitioners of the various trade-offs involved.

As corporations rush to integrate large language models (LLMs) it is critical that they provide factually accurate information, that is robust to any presuppositions that a user may express. In this work, we introduce UPHILL, a dataset consisting of health-related queries with varying degrees of presuppositions. Using UPHILL, we evaluate the factual accuracy and consistency of InstructGPT, ChatGPT, GPT-4 and Bing Copilot models. We find that while model responses rarely contradict true health claims (posed as questions), all investigated models fail to challenge false claims. Alarmingly, responses from these models agree with 23-32% of the existing false claims, and 49-55% with novel fabricated claims. As we increase the extent of presupposition in input queries, responses from all models except Bing Copilot agree with the claim considerably more often, regardless of its veracity. Given the moderate factual accuracy, and the inability of models to challenge false assumptions, our work calls for a careful assessment of current LLMs for use in high-stakes scenarios.