A Course Correction in Steerability Evaluation: Revealing Miscalibration and Side Effects in LLMs

Despite advances in large language models (LLMs) on reasoning and instruction-following tasks, it is unclear whether they can reliably produce outputs aligned with a variety of user goals, a concept called steerability. Two gaps in current LLM evaluation impede steerability evaluation: (1) many benchmarks are built with past LLM chats and Internet-scraped text, which may skew towards common requests, and (2) scalar measures of performance common in prior work could conceal behavioral shifts in LLM outputs in open-ended generation.

Thus, we introduce a framework based on a multi-dimensional goal-space that models user goals and LLM outputs as vectors with dimensions corresponding to text attributes (e.g., reading difficulty). Applied to a text-rewriting task, we find that current LLMs induce unintended changes or side effects to text attributes, impeding steerability.

Interventions to improve steerability, such as prompt engineering, best-of-N sampling, and reinforcement learning fine-tuning, have varying effectiveness but side effects remain problematic. Our findings suggest that even strong LLMs struggle with steerability, and existing alignment strategies may be insufficient.

We open-source our steerability evaluation framework at https://github.com/MLD3/steerability.