Beyond Words: On Large Language Models Actionability in Mission-Critical Risk Analysis

TL;DR

This study evaluates the effectiveness of large language models, especially Retrieval-Augmented Generation and fine-tuned versions, in risk analysis, showing they can be faster and uncover hidden risks despite slightly lower accuracy than human experts.

Contribution

It provides the first empirical comparison of LLMs with human experts in mission-critical risk analysis, highlighting their strengths and optimal use cases.

Findings

RAG-assisted LLMs have lowest hallucination rates

LLMs are quicker and more actionable than humans

Human experts outperform LLMs in accuracy

Abstract

Context. Risk analysis assesses potential risks in specific scenarios. Risk analysis principles are context-less; the same methodology can be applied to a risk connected to health and information technology security. Risk analysis requires a vast knowledge of national and international regulations and standards and is time and effort-intensive. A large language model can quickly summarize information in less time than a human and can be fine-tuned to specific tasks. Aim. Our empirical study aims to investigate the effectiveness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation and fine-tuned LLM in risk analysis. To our knowledge, no prior study has explored its capabilities in risk analysis. Method. We manually curated 193 unique scenarios leading to 1283 representative samples from over 50 mission-critical analyses archived by the industrial context team in the last five years. We compared the base GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models versus their Retrieval-Augmented Generation and fine-tuned counterparts. We employ two human experts as competitors of the models and three other human experts to review the models and the former human experts' analysis. The reviewers analyzed 5,000 scenario analyses. Results and Conclusions. Human experts demonstrated higher accuracy, but LLMs are quicker and more actionable. Moreover, our findings show that RAG-assisted LLMs have the lowest hallucination rates, effectively uncovering hidden risks and complementing human expertise. Thus, the choice of model depends on specific needs, with FTMs for accuracy, RAG for hidden risks discovery, and base models for comprehensiveness and actionability. Therefore, experts can leverage LLMs as an effective complementing companion in risk analysis within a condensed timeframe. They can also save costs by averting unnecessary expenses associated with implementing unwarranted countermeasures.