CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 14Topic ModelingExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Natural Language Processing Techniques

Enhancing Trust in LLMs: Algorithms for Comparing and Interpreting LLMs

Open access
Brown, Nik Bear·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2406.01943arXiv 2406.01943
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.01943

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many deployments require agents to comply with specific regulatory or policy constraints.

    “Beyond avoiding overt toxicity, many deployments require agents to comply with specific regulatory or policy constraints [6, 123].”

    From Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey (2025) · cites this paper as [6]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 14

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Alvarez-Melis, D., & Jaakkola, T. (2018). On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.08049. · arXiv
  2. Annett, J. (2013). Transfer of Training: A Review of Research and Practical Implications. Human Resource Management.
  3. Bellamy, R., Dey, K., & Kannan, K. (2018). AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Bias. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency.
  4. Bimbot, F. (1997). An alternative scheme for perplexity estimation. Interspeech.
  5. Bimbot, F., & Allauzen, A. (2001). An alternative scheme for perplexity estima- tion and its assessment for the evaluation of language models. Interspeech.
  6. Blagec, K., & Schlangen, D. (2022). A global analysis of metrics used for measur- ing performance in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.01152. · arXiv
  7. Brown, T. B., Mann, B., & Ryder, N. (2020). Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165. · arXiv
  8. Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1957). On the perception of incongruity: A paradigm. Journal of Personality.
  9. Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2020). Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04053. · arXiv
  10. Chen, P.-Y., & Hsieh, C.-Y. (2020). Holistic Adversarial Robustness of Deep Learning Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.03418. · arXiv
  11. Cheng, Y., & Xie, L. (2019). Few-shot Learning with Meta Metric Learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.12264. · arXiv
  12. Corbett-Davies, S., & Goel, S. (2018). The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness: A Critical Review of Fair Machine Learning. Communications of the ACM.
  13. Critchlow, D. E. (1990). Probability models on rankings. Journal of Classifica- tion.
  14. Dinakarrao, S. M. P., & Prasad, M. (2021). Efficient Utilization of Adversar- ial Training towards Robust Machine Learners and its Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15285. · arXiv
  15. Donovan, P., & Radosevich, D. J. (2001). The learning transfer system approach to estimating the benefits of training: Empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology.
  16. Dong, Y., & Liao, F. (2020). Benchmarking Adversarial Robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04825. · arXiv
  17. Ford, N., & Gilmer, J. (2019). Adversarial Examples Are a Natural Consequence of Test Error in Noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.09555. · arXiv
  18. Gao, F., & Liu, Z. (2022). SKILL: Structured Knowledge Infusion for Large Lan- guage Models. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.
  19. Gao, F., & Zhu, Z. (2023). Large Language Models on Wikipedia-Style Survey Generation: An Evaluation in NLP Concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13687. · arXiv
  20. Golland, P., & Fischl, B. (2003). Permutation Tests for Classification: Towards Statistical Significance in Image-Based Studies. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.
  21. Gou, Z., & Wang, W. (2023). CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13768. · arXiv
  22. Goyal, S., & Gupta, P. (2021). A Survey of Adversarial Defences and Robustness in NLP. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08654. · arXiv
  23. Grosse, K., & Papernot, N. (2017). On the (Statistical) Detection of Adversarial Examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.06280. · arXiv
  24. Goel, K., & Swayamdipta, S. (2021). Robustness Gym: Unifying the NLP Eval- uation Landscape. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  25. Hajian, S., & Meyer, G. (2020). Transfer of Learning and Teaching: A Review of Transfer Theories and Effective Instructional Practices. Journal of Education.
  26. Hassan, M. M., & Succi, G. (2020). Testability and Software Robustness: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Systems and Software.
  27. Hothorn, T., & Lausen, B. (2006). A Lego System for Conditional Inference. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics.
  28. Huang, X., & Wang, J. (2023). A Survey of Safety and Trustworthiness of Large Language Models through the Lens of Verification and Validation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06164. · arXiv
  29. Jiang, W., & Liang, L. (2019). Multi-Scale Metric Learning for Few-Shot Learn- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13544. · arXiv
  30. Karabacak, M., & Etemad, A. (2023). Embracing Large Language Mod- els for Medical Applications: Opportunities and Challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11167. · arXiv
  31. Liao, Q., & Binns, R. (2023). AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human- Centered Research Roadmap. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08232. · arXiv
  32. Liu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Latent space cartography: A method for describ- ing semantic dimensions in high-dimensional data. Journal of Machine Learning Research.
  33. Liu, Z., & Park, D. (2023). Evaluating Large Language Models for Radiology Natural Language Processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12485. · arXiv
  34. Liu, Y., & Wang, T. (2023). Trustworthy LLMs: A Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.06422. · arXiv
  35. Mekala, D., & Dingliwal, M. (2021). ZEROTOP: Zero-Shot Task-Oriented Se- mantic Parsing using Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07098. · arXiv
  36. Meng, Y., & He, D. (2022). Generating Training Data with Language Models: Towards Zero-Shot Language Understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01232. · arXiv
  37. Miaschi, A., & Brunato, D. (2021). What Makes My Model Perplexed? A Linguistic Investigation on Neural Language Models Perplexity. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
  38. Mehrabi, N., & Morstatter, F. (2019). A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09635. · arXiv
  39. Neal, J., & Liu, H. (2021). An Evaluation Methodology for Natural Language Processing Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.01026. · arXiv
  40. Nguyen, C. V., & Tay, Y. (2020). LEEP: A New Measure to Evaluate Transfer- ability of Learned Representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04271. · arXiv
  41. Olsen, J. H. Jr., & McAllister, S. M. (2016). The Evaluation and Enhancement of Training Transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology.
  42. Oreshkin, B. N., & Ollivier, Y. (2018). TADAM: Task Dependent Adaptive Metric for Improved Few-Shot Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10123. · arXiv
  43. Peng, B., & Li, J. (2020). Few-shot Natural Language Generation for Task- Oriented Dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06215. · arXiv
  44. Peng, B., & Poesia, G. (2023). Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12421. · arXiv
  45. Pessach, D., & Shmueli, E. (2022). Algorithmic Fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11667. · arXiv
  46. Puchert, P., & Kirchhoff, T. (2023). LLMMaps: A Visual Metaphor for Stratified Evaluation of Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13562. · arXiv
  47. Puri, R., & Catanzaro, B. (2019). Zero-shot Text Classification With Generative Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08301. · arXiv
  48. Ruder, S., & Peters, M. (2017). A survey on word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05020. · arXiv
  49. Simon, C., & Lampert, C. (2020). Adaptive Subspaces for Few-Shot Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07889. · arXiv
  50. Sundareswara, R., & Schrater, P. (2008). Perceptual multistability predicted by search model for Bayesian decisions. Journal of Vision.
  51. Tang, W., & Wang, J. (2020). Interpretable Time-series Classification on Few- shot Samples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.13855. · arXiv
  52. Tang, L., & Xu, Y. (2023). Evaluating Large Language Models on Medical Evidence Summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10486. · arXiv
  53. Triantafillou, E., & Zemel, R. (2021). Few-shot Learning Through an Informa- tion Retrieval Lens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06620. · arXiv
  54. Wang, W., & Ji, Z. (2021). Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07359. · arXiv
  55. Wang, W., & Zhou, L. (2022). A Survey on Adversarial Attacks and Defenses in Text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04995. · arXiv
  56. Zhao, X., & Lau, J. H. (2020). Pre-trained Language Models Can be Fully Zero-Shot Learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.10566. · arXiv
  57. Zhong, R., & Tang, J. (2021). Adapting Language Models for Zero-shot Learning by Meta-tuning on Dataset and Prompt Collections. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01769. · arXiv
  58. Zhu, Z., & Gupta, A. (2020). Transfer Learning in Deep Reinforcement Learning: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.

Authors
Brown, N. B.
Affiliations
Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Brown, Nik Bear
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2406.01943
arXiv
2406.01943
OpenAlex
W4399410016
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
large language models, LLM evaluation, trustworthiness, evaluation metrics, perplexity, BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore, adversarial testing, bias and fairness, hallucination detection, human evaluation, transfer learning, zero-shot learning, few-shot learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review