Cited by 12Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Towards Tracing Trustworthiness Dynamics: Revisiting Pre-training Period of Large Language Models

Open access
Qian, Chen, Zhang, Jie, Yao, Wei, Liu, Dongrui, Yin, Zhenfei, Qiao, Yu, Liu, Yong, Shao, Jing·2024·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024

Abstract

Ensuring the trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs) is crucial.Most studies concentrate on fully pre-trained LLMs to better understand and improve LLMs' trustworthiness.In this paper, to reveal the untapped potential of pre-training, we pioneer the exploration of LLMs' trustworthiness during this period, focusing on five key dimensions: reliability, privacy, toxicity, fairness, and robustness.To begin with, we apply linear probing to LLMs.The high probing accuracy suggests that LLMs in early pre-training can already distinguish concepts in each trustworthiness dimension.Therefore, to further uncover the hidden possibilities of pre-training, we extract steering vectors from a LLM's pre-training checkpoints to enhance the LLM's trustworthiness.Finally, inspired by Choi et al. (2023) that mutual information estimation is bounded by linear probing accuracy, we also probe LLMs with mutual information to investigate the dynamics of trustworthiness during pre-training.We are the first to observe a similar two-phase phenomenon: fitting and compression (Shwartz-Ziv and Tishby, 2017).This research provides an initial exploration of trustworthiness modeling during LLM pre-training, seeking to unveil new insights and spur further developments in the field.Our code is publicly accessible at https://github.com/ChnQ/TracingLLM.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.290

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The activation intervention of a head can be determined by Mass Mean Shift (MMS) and Probe Weight Direction (PWD).

    “The activation intervention ∆h of a head can be determined by two methods: Mass Mean Shift (MMS) (Qian et al., 2024) and Probe Weight Direction (PWD) (Li et al., 2024b).”

    From From Imitation to Introspection: Probing Self-Consciousness in Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Qian et al., 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qian, C., Zhang, J., Yao, W., Liu, D., Yin, Z., Qiao, Y., Liu, Y., & Shao, J.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CN)
  • University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Renmin University of China (CN)
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024
Published
2024
Pages
4864-4888
OpenAlex
W4402670798
Cited by
12
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4
FWCI
2.90
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (62076234)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
large language models, pre-training, trustworthiness, linear probing, steering vectors, mutual information, reliability, privacy, toxicity, fairness, robustness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review