Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Enhancing Trust in LLMs: Algorithms for Comparing and Interpreting 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 2406.01943 v1 pith:V5R5KC7K submitted 2024-06-04 cs.CL cs.AI

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

This paper surveys evaluation techniques to enhance the trustworthiness and understanding of Large Language Models (LLMs). As reliance on LLMs grows, ensuring their reliability, fairness, and transparency is crucial. We explore algorithmic methods and metrics to assess LLM performance, identify weaknesses, and guide development towards more trustworthy applications. Key evaluation metrics include Perplexity Measurement, NLP metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, BERTScore, GLEU, Word Error Rate, Character Error Rate), Zero-Shot and Few-Shot Learning Performance, Transfer Learning Evaluation, Adversarial Testing, and Fairness and Bias Evaluation. We introduce innovative approaches like LLMMaps for stratified evaluation, Benchmarking and Leaderboards for competitive assessment, Stratified Analysis for in-depth understanding, Visualization of Blooms Taxonomy for cognitive level accuracy distribution, Hallucination Score for quantifying inaccuracies, Knowledge Stratification Strategy for hierarchical analysis, and Machine Learning Models for Hierarchy Generation. Human Evaluation is highlighted for capturing nuances that automated metrics may miss. These techniques form a framework for evaluating LLMs, aiming to enhance transparency, guide development, and establish user trust. Future papers will describe metric visualization and demonstrate each approach on practical examples.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. SQLens: An End-to-End Framework for Error Detection and Correction in Text-to-SQL

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SQLens uses weak supervision over database and LLM error signals to detect clause-level semantic errors in text-to-SQL and fixes them iteratively, improving execution accuracy on BIRD and Spider.

  2. Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A review that proposes a two-dimensional taxonomy for evaluating LLM agents and highlights enterprise-specific evaluation gaps.

Pith tools