Caiqi Zhang

Caiqi Zhang, Fangyu Liu, Marco Basaldella et al. · cambridge

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capability in a variety of NLP tasks. However, LLMs are also prone to generate nonfactual content. Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is pivotal in enhancing our understanding of a model's confidence on its generation, thereby aiding in the mitigation of nonfactual outputs. Existing research on UQ predominantly targets short text generation, typically yielding brief, word-limited responses. However, real-world applications frequently necessitate much longer responses. Our study first highlights the limitations of current UQ methods in handling long text generation. We then introduce \textsc{Luq} and its two variations, a series of novel sampling-based UQ approaches specifically designed for long text. Our findings reveal that \textsc{Luq} outperforms existing baseline methods in correlating with the model's factuality scores (negative coefficient of -0.85 observed for Gemini Pro). To further improve the factuality of LLM responses, we propose \textsc{Luq-Ensemble}, a method that ensembles responses from multiple models and selects the response with the lowest uncertainty. The ensembling method greatly improves the response factuality upon the best standalone LLM.

Xiaochen Zhu, Caiqi Zhang, Tom Stafford et al. · cambridge

The conformity effect describes the tendency of individuals to align their responses with the majority. Studying this bias in large language models (LLMs) is crucial, as LLMs are increasingly used in various information-seeking and decision-making tasks as conversation partners to improve productivity. Thus, conformity to incorrect responses can compromise their effectiveness. In this paper, we adapt psychological experiments to examine the extent of conformity in popular LLMs. Our findings reveal that all tested models exhibit varying levels of conformity toward the majority, regardless of their initial choice or correctness, across different knowledge domains. Notably, we are the first to show that LLMs are more likely to conform when they are more uncertain in their own prediction. We further explore factors that influence conformity, such as training paradigms and input characteristics, finding that instruction-tuned models are less susceptible to conformity, while increasing the naturalness of majority tones amplifies conformity. Finally, we propose two interventions, Devil's Advocate and Question Distillation, to mitigate conformity, providing insights into building more robust language models.

Sanhanat Sivapiromrat, Caiqi Zhang, Marco Basaldella et al. · cambridge

Recent studies have shown that Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to data poisoning attacks, where malicious training examples embed hidden behaviours triggered by specific input patterns. However, most existing works assume a phrase and focus on the attack's effectiveness, offering limited understanding of trigger mechanisms and how multiple triggers interact within the model. In this paper, we present a framework for studying poisoning in LLMs. We show that multiple distinct backdoor triggers can coexist within a single model without interfering with each other, enabling adversaries to embed several triggers concurrently. Using multiple triggers with high embedding similarity, we demonstrate that poisoned triggers can achieve robust activation even when tokens are substituted or separated by long token spans. Our findings expose a broader and more persistent vulnerability surface in LLMs. To mitigate this threat, we propose a post hoc recovery method that selectively retrains specific model components based on a layer-wise weight difference analysis. Our method effectively removes the trigger behaviour with minimal parameter updates, presenting a practical and efficient defence against multi-trigger poisoning.