Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Beyond Testers' Biases: Guiding Model Testing with Knowledge Bases using LLMs

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 2310.09668 v1 pith:FZOGAFWP submitted 2023-10-14 cs.CL cs.SE

classification cs.CLcs.SE
keywords testingweavertesttestersconceptsknowledgemodelbases
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Current model testing work has mostly focused on creating test cases. Identifying what to test is a step that is largely ignored and poorly supported. We propose Weaver, an interactive tool that supports requirements elicitation for guiding model testing. Weaver uses large language models to generate knowledge bases and recommends concepts from them interactively, allowing testers to elicit requirements for further testing. Weaver provides rich external knowledge to testers and encourages testers to systematically explore diverse concepts beyond their own biases. In a user study, we show that both NLP experts and non-experts identified more, as well as more diverse concepts worth testing when using Weaver. Collectively, they found more than 200 failing test cases for stance detection with zero-shot ChatGPT. Our case studies further show that Weaver can help practitioners test models in real-world settings, where developers define more nuanced application scenarios (e.g., code understanding and transcript summarization) using LLMs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. From Legal Text to Tech Specs: Generative AI's Interpretation of Consent in Privacy Law

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An LLM pipeline that flags and fixes non-compliant consent use cases works imperfectly: it catches about two-thirds of relevant cases with reasoning prompts, and most of its fixes are legally sound but logically inconsistent.

Pith tools