Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 cited by

TrustGPT: A Benchmark for Trustworthy and Responsible Large Language Models

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 2306.11507 v1 pith:VOJHMLIV submitted 2023-06-20 cs.CL cs.AI

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, have gained significant attention due to their impressive natural language processing capabilities. It is crucial to prioritize human-centered principles when utilizing these models. Safeguarding the ethical and moral compliance of LLMs is of utmost importance. However, individual ethical issues have not been well studied on the latest LLMs. Therefore, this study aims to address these gaps by introducing a new benchmark -- TrustGPT. TrustGPT provides a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs in three crucial areas: toxicity, bias, and value-alignment. Initially, TrustGPT examines toxicity in language models by employing toxic prompt templates derived from social norms. It then quantifies the extent of bias in models by measuring quantifiable toxicity values across different groups. Lastly, TrustGPT assesses the value of conversation generation models from both active value-alignment and passive value-alignment tasks. Through the implementation of TrustGPT, this research aims to enhance our understanding of the performance of conversation generation models and promote the development of language models that are more ethical and socially responsible.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Safety Is Not Universal: The Selective Safety Trap in LLM Alignment

    cs.CL 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Safety alignment in LLMs is not uniform but forms a demographic hierarchy, with defense rates varying by up to 42% across groups; a new benchmark and DPO method demonstrate transferable safety.

  2. Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Per-bias selection of a cross-family LLM auditor lifts biased-judgment accuracy from 0.805/0.824 baselines to 0.884.

  3. From RAG to Agentic RAG for Faithful Islamic Question Answering

    cs.CL 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An agentic retrieval-augmented system that searches the Quran in steps before answering outperforms single-shot retrieval and plain models on a new bilingual Islamic QA benchmark.

  4. EPT Benchmark: Evaluation of Persian Trustworthiness in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new Persian-Islamic trustworthiness benchmark ranks Claude highest and Qwen lowest across eight LLMs and finds safety is the weakest dimension.

  5. A Red Teaming Framework for Large Language Models: A Case Study on Faithfulness Evaluation

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Introduces a multi-role red teaming framework using attacker and jury models that increases attack success rates by up to 7.9% on LLM faithfulness in question-answering tasks.

  6. OpenFActScore: Open-Source Atomic Evaluation of Factuality in Text Generation

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using Olmo to extract atomic facts and Gemma to verify them against Wikipedia, OpenFActScore reproduces the original FActScore ranking of 10 LLMs with a Pearson correlation above 0.99.

  7. Guardians and Offenders: A Survey on Harmful Content Generation and Safety Mitigation of LLM

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The submission's abstract promises an LLM safety survey, but the provided body is the opening page of an unrelated arithmetic-dynamics paper, so the artifact is internally inconsistent.

Pith tools