Benchmarking Llama2, Mistral, Gemma and GPT for Factuality, Toxicity, Bias and Propensity for Hallucinations

David Nadeau, Mike Kroutikov, Karen McNeil, Simon Baribeau
4/15/2024
cs.CL

No official code found. Best implementation: innodatalabs/innodata-llm-safety (10 stars, Apache-2.0, last commit 2026-01-07).

Abstract

This paper introduces fourteen novel datasets for the evaluation of Large Language Models' safety in the context of enterprise tasks. A method was devised to evaluate a model's safety, as determined by its ability to follow instructions and output factual, unbiased, grounded, and appropriate content. In this research, we used OpenAI GPT as point of comparison since it excels at all levels of safety. On the open-source side, for smaller models, Meta Llama2 performs well at factuality and toxicity but has the highest propensity for hallucination. Mistral hallucinates the least but cannot handle toxicity well. It performs well in a dataset mixing several tasks and safety vectors in a narrow vertical domain. Gemma, the newly introduced open-source model based on Google Gemini, is generally balanced but trailing behind. When engaging in back-and-forth conversation (multi-turn prompts), we find that the safety of open-source models degrades significantly. Aside from OpenAI's GPT, Mistral is the only model that still performed well in multi-turn tests.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

Apache-2.0

Benchmarking Llama, Mistral, Gemma and GPT for Factuality, Toxicity, Bias and Propensity for Hallucinations

101PythonMar 27, 20249 months agoApache-2.0

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{nadeau2024benchmarking,
  title  = {Benchmarking Llama2, Mistral, Gemma and GPT for Factuality, Toxicity, Bias and Propensity for Hallucinations},
  author = {David Nadeau and Mike Kroutikov and Karen McNeil and Simon Baribeau},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2404.09785},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.09785v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2404.09785.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2404.09785)

Discussion