There is great interest in fine-tuning frontier large language models (LLMs) to inject new information and update existing knowledge. While commercial LLM fine-tuning APIs from providers such as OpenAI and Google promise flexible adaptation for various applications, the efficacy of fine-tuning remains unclear. In this study, we introduce FineTuneBench, an evaluation framework and dataset for understanding how well commercial fine-tuning APIs can successfully learn new and updated knowledge. We analyze five frontier LLMs with commercially available fine-tuning APIs, including GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro, on their effectiveness in two settings: (1) ingesting novel information, such as recent news events and new people profiles, and (2) updating existing knowledge, such as updated medical guidelines and code frameworks. Our results reveal substantial shortcomings in all the models' abilities to effectively learn new information through fine-tuning, with an average generalization accuracy of 37% across all models. Overall, fine-tuning GPT-4o mini is the most effective for infusing new knowledge and updating knowledge, followed by GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4o. The fine-tuning APIs for Gemini 1.5 Flesh and Gemini 1.5 Pro are unable to learn new knowledge or update existing knowledge. These findings underscore a major shortcoming in using current commercial fine-tuning services to achieve reliable knowledge infusion in common scenarios. As LLMs are increasingly used in diverse domains such as software development Kelly (2024) and medicine Gliadkovskaya (2024), it is important they contain up-to-date and relevant knowledge.

Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) is frequently used to mitigate hallucinations and provide up-to-date knowledge for large language models (LLMs). However, given that document retrieval is an imprecise task and sometimes results in erroneous or even harmful content being presented in context, this raises the question of how LLMs handle retrieved information: If the provided content is incorrect, does the model know to ignore it, or does it recapitulate the error? Conversely, when the model's initial response is incorrect, does it always know to use the retrieved information to correct itself, or does it insist on its wrong prior response? To answer this, we curate a dataset of over 1200 questions across six domains (e.g., drug dosages, Olympic records, locations) along with content relevant to answering each question. We further apply precise perturbations to the answers in the content that range from subtle to blatant errors. We benchmark six top-performing LLMs, including GPT-4o, on this dataset and find that LLMs are susceptible to adopting incorrect retrieved content, overriding their own correct prior knowledge over 60% of the time. However, the more unrealistic the retrieved content is (i.e. more deviated from truth), the less likely the model is to adopt it. Also, the less confident a model is in its initial response (via measuring token probabilities), the more likely it is to adopt the information in the retrieved content. We exploit this finding and demonstrate simple methods for improving model accuracy where there is conflicting retrieved content. Our results highlight a difficult task and benchmark for LLMs -- namely, their ability to correctly discern when it is wrong in light of correct retrieved content and to reject cases when the provided content is incorrect.

The rapid proliferation of AI models has underscored the importance of thorough documentation, as it enables users to understand, trust, and effectively utilize these models in various applications. Although developers are encouraged to produce model cards, it's not clear how much information or what information these cards contain. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of 32,111 AI model documentations on Hugging Face, a leading platform for distributing and deploying AI models. Our investigation sheds light on the prevailing model card documentation practices. Most of the AI models with substantial downloads provide model cards, though the cards have uneven informativeness. We find that sections addressing environmental impact, limitations, and evaluation exhibit the lowest filled-out rates, while the training section is the most consistently filled-out. We analyze the content of each section to characterize practitioners' priorities. Interestingly, there are substantial discussions of data, sometimes with equal or even greater emphasis than the model itself. To evaluate the impact of model cards, we conducted an intervention study by adding detailed model cards to 42 popular models which had no or sparse model cards previously. We find that adding model cards is moderately correlated with an increase weekly download rates. Our study opens up a new perspective for analyzing community norms and practices for model documentation through large-scale data science and linguistics analysis.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently being used to answer medical questions across a variety of clinical domains. Recent top-performing commercial LLMs, in particular, are also capable of citing sources to support their responses. In this paper, we ask: do the sources that LLMs generate actually support the claims that they make? To answer this, we propose three contributions. First, as expert medical annotations are an expensive and time-consuming bottleneck for scalable evaluation, we demonstrate that GPT-4 is highly accurate in validating source relevance, agreeing 88% of the time with a panel of medical doctors. Second, we develop an end-to-end, automated pipeline called \textit{SourceCheckup} and use it to evaluate five top-performing LLMs on a dataset of 1200 generated questions, totaling over 40K pairs of statements and sources. Interestingly, we find that between ~50% to 90% of LLM responses are not fully supported by the sources they provide. We also evaluate GPT-4 with retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and find that, even still, around 30\% of individual statements are unsupported, while nearly half of its responses are not fully supported. Third, we open-source our curated dataset of medical questions and expert annotations for future evaluations. Given the rapid pace of LLM development and the potential harms of incorrect or outdated medical information, it is crucial to also understand and quantify their capability to produce relevant, trustworthy medical references.

Quantifying the impact of training data points is crucial for understanding the outputs of machine learning models and for improving the transparency of the AI pipeline. The influence function is a principled and popular data attribution method, but its computational cost often makes it challenging to use. This issue becomes more pronounced in the setting of large language models and text-to-image models. In this work, we propose DataInf, an efficient influence approximation method that is practical for large-scale generative AI models. Leveraging an easy-to-compute closed-form expression, DataInf outperforms existing influence computation algorithms in terms of computational and memory efficiency. Our theoretical analysis shows that DataInf is particularly well-suited for parameter-efficient fine-tuning techniques such as LoRA. Through systematic empirical evaluations, we show that DataInf accurately approximates influence scores and is orders of magnitude faster than existing methods. In applications to RoBERTa-large, Llama-2-13B-chat, and stable-diffusion-v1.5 models, DataInf effectively identifies the most influential fine-tuning examples better than other approximate influence scores. Moreover, it can help to identify which data points are mislabeled.

The rapid adoption of generative language models has brought about substantial advancements in digital communication, while simultaneously raising concerns regarding the potential misuse of AI-generated content. Although numerous detection methods have been proposed to differentiate between AI and human-generated content, the fairness and robustness of these detectors remain underexplored. In this study, we evaluate the performance of several widely-used GPT detectors using writing samples from native and non-native English writers. Our findings reveal that these detectors consistently misclassify non-native English writing samples as AI-generated, whereas native writing samples are accurately identified. Furthermore, we demonstrate that simple prompting strategies can not only mitigate this bias but also effectively bypass GPT detectors, suggesting that GPT detectors may unintentionally penalize writers with constrained linguistic expressions. Our results call for a broader conversation about the ethical implications of deploying ChatGPT content detectors and caution against their use in evaluative or educational settings, particularly when they may inadvertently penalize or exclude non-native English speakers from the global discourse.

Medical AI algorithms can often experience degraded performance when evaluated on previously unseen sites. Addressing cross-site performance disparities is key to ensuring that AI is equitable and effective when deployed on diverse patient populations. Multi-site evaluations are key to diagnosing such disparities as they can test algorithms across a broader range of potential biases such as patient demographics, equipment types, and technical parameters. However, such tests do not explain why the model performs worse. Our framework provides a method for quantifying the marginal and cumulative effect of each type of bias on the overall performance difference when a model is evaluated on external data. We demonstrate its usefulness in a case study of a deep learning model trained to detect the presence of pneumothorax, where our framework can help explain up to 60% of the discrepancy in performance across different sites with known biases like disease comorbidities and imaging parameters.