Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Measuring and Enhancing Trustworthiness of LLMs in RAG through Grounded Attributions and Learning to Refuse

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 2409.11242 v4 pith:ASXSCR3E submitted 2024-09-17 cs.CL

Measuring and Enhancing Trustworthiness of LLMs in RAG through Grounded Attributions and Learning to Refuse

classification cs.CL
keywords llmstrust-alignmodelstrust-scoreasqaeli5learningqampari
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

LLMs are an integral component of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. While many studies focus on evaluating the overall quality of end-to-end RAG systems, there is a gap in understanding the appropriateness of LLMs for the RAG task. To address this, we introduce Trust-Score, a holistic metric that evaluates the trustworthiness of LLMs within the RAG framework. Our results show that various prompting methods, such as in-context learning, fail to effectively adapt LLMs to the RAG task as measured by Trust-Score. Consequently, we propose Trust-Align, a method to align LLMs for improved Trust-Score performance. 26 out of 27 models aligned using Trust-Align substantially outperform competitive baselines on ASQA, QAMPARI, and ELI5. Specifically, in LLaMA-3-8b, Trust-Align outperforms FRONT on ASQA (up 12.56), QAMPARI (up 36.04), and ELI5 (up 17.69). Trust-Align also significantly enhances models' ability to correctly refuse and provide quality citations. We also demonstrate the effectiveness of Trust-Align across different open-weight models, including the LLaMA series (1b to 8b), Qwen-2.5 series (0.5b to 7b), and Phi3.5 (3.8b). We release our code at https://github.com/declare-lab/trust-align.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    AI safety should be measured by whether deployed systems keep errors visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable across five integrity layers, not only by whether individual model outputs look safe.