REVIEW 2 cited by
TruthEval: A Dataset to Evaluate LLM Truthfulness and Reliability
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
TruthEval: A Dataset to Evaluate LLM Truthfulness and Reliability
read the original abstract
Large Language Model (LLM) evaluation is currently one of the most important areas of research, with existing benchmarks proving to be insufficient and not completely representative of LLMs' various capabilities. We present a curated collection of challenging statements on sensitive topics for LLM benchmarking called TruthEval. These statements were curated by hand and contain known truth values. The categories were chosen to distinguish LLMs' abilities from their stochastic nature. We perform some initial analyses using this dataset and find several instances of LLMs failing in simple tasks showing their inability to understand simple questions.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Common-agency Games for Multi-Objective Test-Time Alignment
CAGE uses common-agency games and an EPEC algorithm to compute equilibrium policies that balance multiple conflicting objectives for test-time LLM alignment.
-
Learning Uncertainty from Sequential Internal Dispersion in Large Language Models
SIVR detects LLM hallucinations by learning from token-wise and layer-wise variance patterns in internal hidden states, outperforming baselines with better generalization and less training data.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.