Search

As fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) becomes increasingly prevalent, users often rely on third-party services with limited visibility into their fine-tuning processes. This lack of transparency raises the question: how do consumers verify that fine-tuning services are performed correctly? For instance, a service provider could claim to fine-tune a model for each user, yet simply send all users back the same base model. To address this issue, we propose vTune, a simple method that uses a small number of backdoor data points added to the training data to provide a statistical test for verifying that a provider fine-tuned a custom model on a particular user's dataset. Unlike existing works, vTune is able to scale to verification of fine-tuning on state-of-the-art LLMs, and can be used both with open-source and closed-source models. We test our approach across several model families and sizes as well as across multiple instruction-tuning datasets, and find that the statistical test is satisfied with p-values on the order of $\sim 10^{-40}$, with no negative impact on downstream task performance. Further, we explore several attacks that attempt to subvert vTune and demonstrate the method's robustness to these attacks.

Test set contamination, wherein test data from a benchmark ends up in a newer model's training set, is a well-documented obstacle for fair LLM evaluation and can quickly render benchmarks obsolete. To mitigate this, many recent benchmarks crowdsource new prompts and evaluations from human or LLM judges; however, these can introduce significant biases, and break down when scoring hard questions. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark for LLMs designed to be immune to both test set contamination and the pitfalls of LLM judging and human crowdsourcing. We release LiveBench, the first benchmark that (1) contains frequently-updated questions from recent information sources, (2) scores answers automatically according to objective ground-truth values, and (3) contains a wide variety of challenging tasks, spanning math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. To achieve this, LiveBench contains questions that are based on recently-released math competitions, arXiv papers, news articles, and datasets, and it contains harder, contamination-free versions of tasks from previous benchmarks such as Big-Bench Hard, AMPS, and IFEval. We evaluate many prominent closed-source models, as well as dozens of open-source models ranging from 0.5B to 110B in size. LiveBench is difficult, with top models achieving below 65% accuracy. We release all questions, code, and model answers. Questions will be added and updated on a monthly basis, and we will release new tasks and harder versions of tasks over time so that LiveBench can distinguish between the capabilities of LLMs as they improve in the future. We welcome community engagement and collaboration for expanding the benchmark tasks and models.

When using large language models (LLMs) in high-stakes applications, we need to know when we can trust their predictions. Some works argue that prompting high-performance LLMs is sufficient to produce calibrated uncertainties, while others introduce sampling methods that can be prohibitively expensive. In this work, we first argue that prompting on its own is insufficient to achieve good calibration and then show that fine-tuning on a small dataset of correct and incorrect answers can create an uncertainty estimate with good generalization and small computational overhead. We show that a thousand graded examples are sufficient to outperform baseline methods and that training through the features of a model is necessary for good performance and tractable for large open-source models when using LoRA. We also investigate the mechanisms that enable reliable LLM uncertainty estimation, finding that many models can be used as general-purpose uncertainty estimators, applicable not just to their own uncertainties but also the uncertainty of other models. Lastly, we show that uncertainty estimates inform human use of LLMs in human-AI collaborative settings through a user study., Comment: NeurIPS 2024 Camera Ready

Direct Preference Optimisation (DPO) is effective at significantly improving the performance of large language models (LLMs) on downstream tasks such as reasoning, summarisation, and alignment. Using pairs of preferred and dispreferred data, DPO models the relative probability of picking one response over another. In this work, first we show theoretically that the standard DPO loss can lead to a reduction of the model's likelihood of the preferred examples, as long as the relative probability between the preferred and dispreferred classes increases. We then show empirically that this phenomenon occurs when fine-tuning LLMs on common datasets, especially datasets in which the edit distance between pairs of completions is low. Using these insights, we design DPO-Positive (DPOP), a new loss function and training procedure which avoids this failure mode. Surprisingly, we find that DPOP outperforms DPO and other fine-tuning procedures across a wide variety of datasets and downstream tasks, including datasets with high edit distances between completions. Furthermore, we find that the DPOP-tuned model outperforms the DPO-tuned model (all else equal) on benchmarks independent of the fine-tuning data, such as MT-Bench. Finally, using DPOP, we create and open-source Smaug-34B and Smaug-72B, with the latter becoming the first open-source LLM to surpass an average accuracy of 80% on the HuggingFace Open LLM Leaderboard.