Adversarial Fine-Tuning of Language Models: An Iterative Optimisation Approach for the Generation and Detection of Problematic Content

AI-generated keywords: Adversarial Fine-Tuning Language Models Problematic Content Dual-Stage Optimisation Adversarial Cycle

AI-generated Key Points

  • Authors address the issue of unintended harmful content produced by Large Language Models (LLMs)
  • Propose a unique dual-stage optimisation technique using adversarial fine-tuning
  • Approach involves an adversarial model generating potentially harmful prompts and a judge model identifying these prompts iteratively
  • Adversarial cycle creates a diverse dataset for further fine-tuning, allowing for continuous improvement
  • Method evaluated through classification accuracy on dataset containing problematic prompts undetected by GPT-4 and harmless prompts
  • Significant increase in judge model's classification accuracy observed during optimisation
  • Basic model \texttt{ada} achieves higher accuracy than GPT-4 on hold-out test set after refinement rounds
  • Fine-tuning process enhances performance in related tasks like identifying toxic comments
  • Dual-stage optimisation technique using adversarial fine-tuning proves effective in addressing unintended harmful content generation in LLMs and improves performance in parallel tasks
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Charles O'Neill, Jack Miller, Ioana Ciuca, Yuan-Sen Ting, Thang Bui

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: In this paper, we tackle the emerging challenge of unintended harmful content generation in Large Language Models (LLMs) with a novel dual-stage optimisation technique using adversarial fine-tuning. Our two-pronged approach employs an adversarial model, fine-tuned to generate potentially harmful prompts, and a judge model, iteratively optimised to discern these prompts. In this adversarial cycle, the two models seek to outperform each other in the prompting phase, generating a dataset of rich examples which are then used for fine-tuning. This iterative application of prompting and fine-tuning allows continuous refinement and improved performance. The performance of our approach is evaluated through classification accuracy on a dataset consisting of problematic prompts not detected by GPT-4, as well as a selection of contentious but unproblematic prompts. We show considerable increase in classification accuracy of the judge model on this challenging dataset as it undergoes the optimisation process. Furthermore, we show that a rudimentary model \texttt{ada} can achieve 13\% higher accuracy on the hold-out test set than GPT-4 after only a few rounds of this process, and that this fine-tuning improves performance in parallel tasks such as toxic comment identification.

Submitted to arXiv on 26 Aug. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2308.13768v1

In their paper "Adversarial Fine-Tuning of Language Models: An Iterative Optimisation Approach for the Generation and Detection of Problematic Content," authors Charles O'Neill, Jack Miller, Ioana Ciuca, Yuan-Sen Ting, and Thang Bui from various departments at the Australian National University address the issue of unintended harmful content produced by Large Language Models (LLMs). They propose a unique dual-stage optimisation technique using adversarial fine-tuning to tackle this challenge. Their approach involves an adversarial model trained to generate potentially harmful prompts and a judge model iteratively refined to accurately identify these prompts. Through an adversarial cycle where these models compete in prompt generation, a diverse dataset is created for further fine-tuning. This process allows for continuous improvement and enhanced performance. The effectiveness of their method is evaluated through classification accuracy on a dataset containing problematic prompts undetected by GPT-4 as well as contentious yet harmless prompts. The results demonstrate a significant increase in classification accuracy of the judge model as it undergoes optimisation. Additionally, they show that even a basic model named \texttt{ada} can achieve higher accuracy on a hold-out test set compared to GPT-4 after just a few rounds of refinement. Furthermore, this fine-tuning process enhances performance in related tasks such as identifying toxic comments. Overall, the authors' dual-stage optimisation technique using adversarial fine-tuning proves effective in addressing the challenge of unintended harmful content generation in LLMs and shows potential for enhancing performance in parallel tasks.
Created on 13 Oct. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.