Keywords: large language models, alignment, refusal
TL;DR: We study the problem of applying general language models to specific tasks while refusing queries from all others, and find that an existing method designed for safety, circuit breakers, has many favorable properties.
Abstract: Language models are now deployed in a wide variety of user-facing applications, often for specific purposes like answering questions about documentation or acting as coding assistants. As these models are intended for particular purposes, they should not be able to answer irrelevant queries like requests for poetry or questions about physics, or even worse, queries that can only be answered by humans like sensitive company policies. Instead we would like them to only answer queries corresponding to desired behavior and refuse all other requests, which we refer to as scoping. We find that, despite the use of system prompts, two representative language models can be poorly scoped and respond to queries they should not be addressing. We then conduct a comprehensive empirical evaluation of methods which could be used for scoping the behavior of language models. Among many other results, we show that a recently-proposed method for general alignment, Circuit Breakers (CB), can be adapted to scope language models to very specific tasks like sentiment analysis or summarization or even tasks with finer-grained scoping (e.g. summarizing only news articles). When compared to standard methods like fine-tuning or preference learning, CB is more robust both for out of distribution tasks, and to adversarial prompting techniques. We also show that layering SFT and CB together often results in the best of both worlds: improved performance only on relevant queries, while rejecting irrelevant ones.
Supplementary Material: pdf
Primary Area: alignment, fairness, safety, privacy, and societal considerations
Code Of Ethics: I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Submission Guidelines: I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
Reciprocal Reviewing: I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
Anonymous Url: I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
No Acknowledgement Section: I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
Submission Number: 11453
Loading