Analyzing Memorization in Large Language Models through the Lens of Model Attribution

Large Language Models (LLMs) are prevalent in modern applications but often memorize training data, leading to privacy breaches and copyright issues. Existing research has mainly focused on posthoc analyses, such as extracting memorized content or developing memorization metrics, without exploring the underlying architectural factors that contribute to memorization. In this work, we investigate memorization from an architectural lens by analyzing how attention modules at different layers impact its memorization and generalization performance. Using attribution techniques, we systematically intervene in the LLM architecture by bypassing attention modules at specific blocks while keeping other components like layer normalization and MLP transformations intact. We provide theorems analyzing our intervention mechanism from a mathematical view, bounding the difference in layer outputs with and without our attributions. Our theoretical and empirical analyses reveal that attention modules in deeper transformer blocks are primarily responsible for memorization, whereas earlier blocks are crucial for the models generalization and reasoning capabilities. We validate our findings through comprehensive experiments on different LLM families (Pythia and GPTNeo) and five benchmark datasets. Our insights offer a practical approach to mitigate memorization in LLMs while preserving their performance, contributing to safer and more ethical deployment in real world applications.

HALLUCINOGEN: A Benchmark for Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Visual-Language Models

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in performing complex multimodal tasks. However, they are still plagued by object hallucination: the misidentification or misclassification of objects present in images. To this end, we propose HALLUCINOGEN, a novel visual question answering (VQA) object hallucination attack benchmark that utilizes diverse contextual reasoning prompts to evaluate object hallucination in state-of-the-art LVLMs. We design a series of contextual reasoning hallucination prompts to evaluate LVLMs' ability to accurately identify objects in a target image while asking them to perform diverse visual-language tasks such as identifying, locating or performing visual reasoning around specific objects. Further, we extend our benchmark to high-stakes medical applications and introduce MED-HALLUCINOGEN, hallucination attacks tailored to the biomedical domain, and evaluate the hallucination performance of LVLMs on medical images, a critical area where precision is crucial. Finally, we conduct extensive evaluations of eight LVLMs and two hallucination mitigation strategies across multiple datasets to show that current generic and medical LVLMs remain susceptible to hallucination attacks.

On the Impact of Fine-Tuning on Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Large language models have emerged as powerful tools for general intelligence, showcasing advanced natural language processing capabilities that find applications across diverse domains. Despite their impressive performance, recent studies have highlighted the potential for significant enhancements in LLMs' task-specific performance through fine-tuning strategies like Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and Quantized Low-Rank Adapters (Q-LoRA) method. However, previous works have shown that while fine-tuning offers significant performance gains, it also leads to challenges such as catastrophic forgetting and privacy and safety risks. To this end, there has been little to no work in \textit{understanding the impact of fine-tuning on the reasoning capabilities of LLMs}. Our research investigates the effect of fine-tuning on the reasoning abilities of LLMs, addressing critical questions regarding the impact of task-specific fine-tuning on overall reasoning capabilities, the influence of fine-tuning on Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning performance, and the implications for the faithfulness of CoT reasonings. By exploring these dimensions, our study shows the impact of fine-tuning on LLM reasoning capabilities, where the faithfulness of CoT reasoning, on average across four datasets, decreases, highlighting potential shifts in internal mechanisms of the LLMs resulting from fine-tuning processes.

Towards Operationalizing Right to Data Protection

The widespread practice of indiscriminate data scraping to fine-tune language models (LMs) raises significant legal and ethical concerns, particularly regarding compliance with data protection laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This practice often results in the unauthorized use of personal information, prompting growing debate within the academic and regulatory communities. Recent works have introduced the concept of generating unlearnable datasets (by adding imperceptible noise to the clean data), such that the underlying model achieves lower loss during training but fails to generalize to the unseen test setting. Though somewhat effective, these approaches are predominantly designed for images and are limited by several practical constraints like requiring knowledge of the target model. To this end, we introduce RegText, a framework that injects imperceptible spurious correlations into natural language datasets, effectively rendering them unlearnable without affecting semantic content. We demonstrate RegText's utility through rigorous empirical analysis of small and large LMs. Notably, RegText can restrict newer models like GPT-4o and Llama from learning on our generated data, resulting in a drop in their test accuracy compared to their zero-shot performance and paving the way for generating unlearnable text to protect public data.

On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in real-world applications in critical domains such as healthcare, it is important to ensure that the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning generated by these models faithfully captures their underlying behavior. While LLMs are known to generate CoT reasoning that is appealing to humans, prior studies have shown that these explanations do not accurately reflect the actual behavior of the underlying LLMs. In this work, we explore the promise of three broad approaches commonly employed to steer the behavior of LLMs to enhance the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning generated by LLMs: in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing. Specifically, we introduce novel strategies for in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing aimed at improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning. We then carry out extensive empirical analyses with multiple benchmark datasets to explore the promise of these strategies. Our analyses indicate that these strategies offer limited success in improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning, with only slight performance enhancements in controlled scenarios. Activation editing demonstrated minimal success, while fine-tuning and in-context learning achieved marginal improvements that failed to generalize across diverse reasoning and truthful question-answering benchmarks. In summary, our work underscores the inherent difficulty in eliciting faithful CoT reasoning from LLMs, suggesting that the current array of approaches may not be sufficient to address this complex challenge.

Towards Safe and Aligned Large Language Models for Medicine

The capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have been progressing at a breathtaking speed, leaving even their own developers grappling with the depth of their potential and risks. While initial steps have been taken to evaluate the safety and alignment of general-knowledge LLMs, exposing some weaknesses, to our knowledge, the safety and alignment of medical LLMs has not been evaluated despite their risks for personal health and safety, public health and safety, and human rights. To this end, we carry out the first safety evaluation for medical LLMs. Specifically, we set forth a definition of medical safety and alignment for medical artificial intelligence systems, develop a dataset of harmful medical questions to evaluate the medical safety and alignment of an LLM, evaluate both general and medical safety and alignment of medical LLMs, demonstrate fine-tuning as an effective mitigation strategy, and discuss broader, large-scale approaches used by the machine learning community to develop safe and aligned LLMs. We hope that this work casts light on the safety and alignment of medical LLMs and motivates future work to study it and develop additional mitigation strategies, minimizing the risks of harm of LLMs in medicine.

Understanding the Effects of Iterative Prompting on Truthfulness

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has notably transformed numerous sectors, offering impressive text generation capabilities. Yet, the reliability and truthfulness of these models remain pressing concerns. To this end, we investigate iterative prompting, a strategy hypothesized to refine LLM responses, assessing its impact on LLM truthfulness, an area which has not been thoroughly explored. Our extensive experiments delve into the intricacies of iterative prompting variants, examining their influence on the accuracy and calibration of model responses. Our findings reveal that naive prompting methods significantly undermine truthfulness, leading to exacerbated calibration errors. In response to these challenges, we introduce several prompting variants designed to address the identified issues. These variants demonstrate marked improvements over existing baselines, signaling a promising direction for future research. Our work provides a nuanced understanding of iterative prompting and introduces novel approaches to enhance the truthfulness of LLMs, thereby contributing to the development of more accurate and trustworthy AI systems.

Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as powerful tools for several natural language processing (NLP) applications. Recent works show that modern LLMs can generate self-explanations (SEs), which elicit their intermediate reasoning steps for explaining their behavior. Self-explanations have seen widespread adoption owing to their conversational and plausible nature. However, there is little to no understanding of their faithfulness. In this work, we discuss the dichotomy between faithfulness and plausibility in SEs generated by LLMs. We argue that while LLMs are adept at generating plausible explanations -- seemingly logical and coherent to human users -- these explanations do not necessarily align with the reasoning processes of the LLMs, raising concerns about their faithfulness. We highlight that the current trend towards increasing the plausibility of explanations, primarily driven by the demand for user-friendly interfaces, may come at the cost of diminishing their faithfulness. We assert that the faithfulness of explanations is critical in LLMs employed for high-stakes decision-making. Moreover, we urge the community to identify the faithfulness requirements of real-world applications and ensure explanations meet those needs. Finally, we propose some directions for future work, emphasizing the need for novel methodologies and frameworks that can enhance the faithfulness of self-explanations without compromising their plausibility, essential for the transparent deployment of LLMs in diverse high-stakes domains.

Quantifying Uncertainty in Natural Language Explanations of Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as powerful tools for several high-stakes natural language processing (NLP) applications. Recent prompting works claim to elicit intermediate reasoning steps and key tokens that serve as proxy explanations for LLM predictions. However, there is no certainty whether these explanations are reliable and reflect the LLMs behavior. In this work, we make one of the first attempts at quantifying the uncertainty in explanations of LLMs. To this end, we propose two novel metrics -- $\textit{Verbalized Uncertainty}$ and $\textit{Probing Uncertainty}$ -- to quantify the uncertainty of generated explanations. While verbalized uncertainty involves prompting the LLM to express its confidence in its explanations, probing uncertainty leverages sample and model perturbations as a means to quantify the uncertainty. Our empirical analysis of benchmark datasets reveals that verbalized uncertainty is not a reliable estimate of explanation confidence. Further, we show that the probing uncertainty estimates are correlated with the faithfulness of an explanation, with lower uncertainty corresponding to explanations with higher faithfulness. Our study provides insights into the challenges and opportunities of quantifying uncertainty in LLM explanations, contributing to the broader discussion of the trustworthiness of foundation models.

Are Large Language Models Post Hoc Explainers?

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as powerful tools for a plethora of natural language processing (NLP) applications. A recent innovation, in-context learning (ICL), enables LLMs to learn new tasks by supplying a few examples in the prompt during inference time, thereby eliminating the need for model fine-tuning. While LLMs have been utilized in several applications, their applicability in explaining the behavior of other models remains relatively unexplored. Despite the growing number of new explanation techniques, many require white-box access to the model and/or are computationally expensive, highlighting a need for next-generation post hoc explainers. In this work, we present the first framework to study the effectiveness of LLMs in explaining other predictive models. More specifically, we propose a novel framework encompassing multiple prompting strategies: i) Perturbation-based ICL, ii) Prediction-based ICL, iii) Instruction-based ICL, and iv) Explanation-based ICL, with varying levels of information about the underlying ML model and the local neighborhood of the test sample. We conduct extensive experiments with real-world benchmark datasets to demonstrate that LLM-generated explanations perform on par with state-of-the-art post hoc explainers using their ability to leverage ICL examples and their internal knowledge in generating model explanations. On average, across four datasets and two ML models, we observe that LLMs identify the most important feature with 72.19% accuracy, opening up new frontiers in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to explore LLM-based explanation frameworks.