TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12545v2
• Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 22:02:10 GMT
• Title: TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness
• Authors: Danna Zheng, Danyang Liu, Mirella Lapata, Jeff Z. Pan,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge.
• Score: 58.721012475577716
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. However, concerns have arisen regarding the trustworthiness of LLMs outputs, particularly in closed-book question-answering tasks, where non-experts may struggle to identify inaccuracies due to the absence of contextual or ground truth information. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge. Additionally, TrustScore can seamlessly integrate with fact-checking methods, which assesses alignment with external knowledge sources. The experimental results show that TrustScore achieves strong correlations with human judgments, surpassing existing reference-free metrics, and achieving results on par with reference-based metrics.

Related papers

• Learning to Route with Confidence Tokens [43.63392143501436]
  We study the extent to which large language models can reliably indicate confidence in their answers. We propose Self-REF, a lightweight training strategy to teach LLMs to express confidence in a reliable manner. Compared to conventional approaches such as verbalizing confidence and examining token probabilities, we demonstrate empirically that confidence tokens show significant improvements in downstream routing and rejection learning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T07:28:18Z)
• Factual Confidence of LLMs: on Reliability and Robustness of Current Estimators [6.403926452181712]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to be unreliable in the factuality of their answers. We present a survey and empirical comparison of estimators of factual confidence. Our experiments indicate that trained hidden-state probes provide the most reliable confidence estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:11:37Z)
• SaySelf: Teaching LLMs to Express Confidence with Self-Reflective Rationales [29.33581578047835]
  SaySelf is a training framework that teaches large language models to express more accurate fine-grained confidence estimates. In addition, SaySelf directs LLMs to produce self-reflective rationales that clearly identify gaps in their parametric knowledge. We show that the generated self-reflective rationales are reasonable and can further contribute to the calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T16:21:16Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• When to Trust LLMs: Aligning Confidence with Response Quality [49.371218210305656]
  We propose CONfidence-Quality-ORDer-preserving alignment approach (CONQORD) It integrates quality reward and order-preserving alignment reward functions. Experiments demonstrate that CONQORD significantly improves the alignment performance between confidence and response accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T09:42:46Z)
• The Calibration Gap between Model and Human Confidence in Large Language Models [14.539888672603743]
  Large language models (LLMs) need to be well-calibrated in the sense that they can accurately assess and communicate how likely it is that their predictions are correct. Recent work has focused on the quality of internal LLM confidence assessments. This paper explores the disparity between external human confidence in an LLM's responses and the internal confidence of the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T22:21:04Z)
• TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models [446.5640421311468]
  This paper introduces TrustLLM, a comprehensive study of trustworthiness in large language models (LLMs) We first propose a set of principles for trustworthy LLMs that span eight different dimensions. Based on these principles, we establish a benchmark across six dimensions including truthfulness, safety, fairness, robustness, privacy, and machine ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T22:07:21Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Evaluate What You Can't Evaluate: Unassessable Quality for Generated Response [56.25966921370483]
  There are challenges in using reference-free evaluators based on large language models. Reference-free evaluators are more suitable for open-ended examples with different semantics responses. There are risks in using eference-free evaluators based on LLMs to evaluate the quality of dialogue responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:52:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.