Abstract:With the development of large language models (LLMs), the sequence length of these models continues to increase, drawing significant attention to long-context language models. However, the evaluation of these models has been primarily limited to their capabilities, with a lack of research focusing on their safety. Existing work, such as ManyShotJailbreak, has to some extent demonstrated that long-context language models can exhibit safety concerns. However, the methods used are limited and lack comprehensiveness. In response, we introduce \textbf{LongSafetyBench}, the first benchmark designed to objectively and comprehensively evaluate the safety of long-context models. LongSafetyBench consists of 10 task categories, with an average length of 41,889 words. After testing eight long-context language models on LongSafetyBench, we found that existing models generally exhibit insufficient safety capabilities. The proportion of safe responses from most mainstream long-context LLMs is below 50\%. Moreover, models' safety performance in long-context scenarios does not always align with that in short-context scenarios. Further investigation revealed that long-context models tend to overlook harmful content within lengthy texts. We also proposed a simple yet effective solution, allowing open-source models to achieve performance comparable to that of top-tier closed-source models. We believe that LongSafetyBench can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating the safety capabilities of long-context language models. We hope that our work will encourage the broader community to pay attention to the safety of long-context models and contribute to the development of solutions to improve the safety of long-context LLMs.
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) acquire extensive knowledge and remarkable abilities from extensive text corpora, making them powerful tools for various applications. To make LLMs more usable, aligning them with human preferences is essential. Existing alignment techniques, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), typically embed predefined preferences directly within the model's parameters. These methods, however, often result in a static alignment that can not account for the diversity of human preferences in practical applications. In response to this challenge, we propose an effective method, \textbf{MetaAlign}, which aims to help LLMs dynamically align with various explicit or implicit preferences specified at inference time. Experimental results show that LLMs optimized on our meticulously constructed MetaAlign Dataset can effectively align with any preferences specified at the inference stage, validating the feasibility of MetaAlign. We hope that our work can provide some insights into the alignment of language models.
Abstract:With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), they are not only used as general-purpose AI assistants but are also customized through further fine-tuning to meet the requirements of different applications. A pivotal factor in the success of current LLMs is the alignment process. Current alignment methods, such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), focus on training-time alignment and are often complex and cumbersome to implement. Therefore, we develop \textbf{InferAligner}, a novel inference-time alignment method that utilizes cross-model guidance for harmlessness alignment. InferAligner utilizes safety steering vectors extracted from safety-aligned model to modify the activations of the target model when responding to harmful inputs, thereby guiding the target model to provide harmless responses. Experimental results show that our method can be very effectively applied to domain-specific models in finance, medicine, and mathematics, as well as to multimodal large language models (MLLMs) such as LLaVA. It significantly diminishes the Attack Success Rate (ASR) of both harmful instructions and jailbreak attacks, while maintaining almost unchanged performance in downstream tasks.