Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Sampling Preferences Yields Simple Trustworthiness Scores

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.03399 v1 pith:5BSY4PO3 submitted 2025-06-03 cs.HC cs.AI

Sampling Preferences Yields Simple Trustworthiness Scores

classification cs.HC cs.AI
keywords multi-dimensionalsamplingpreferencellmsmodelstrustworthinessusersconsistently
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the onset of large language models (LLMs), the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models is becoming increasingly multi-dimensional. Accordingly, there have been several large, multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks put forward to evaluate LLMs. Though these frameworks are much more realistic than previous attempts which only used a single score like accuracy, multi-dimensional evaluations can complicate decision-making since there is no obvious way to select an optimal model. This work introduces preference sampling, a method to extract a scalar trustworthiness score from multi-dimensional evaluation results by considering the many characteristics of model performance which users value. We show that preference sampling improves upon alternate aggregation methods by using multi-dimensional trustworthiness evaluations of LLMs from TrustLLM and DecodingTrust. We find that preference sampling is consistently reductive, fully reducing the set of candidate models 100% of the time whereas Pareto optimality never reduces the set by more than 50%. Likewise, preference sampling is consistently sensitive to user priors-allowing users to specify the relative weighting and confidence of their preferences-whereas averaging scores is intransigent to the users' prior knowledge.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.