How to Choose a Threshold for an Evaluation Metric for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.12148v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 21:57:25 GMT
• Title: How to Choose a Threshold for an Evaluation Metric for Large Language Models
• Authors: Bhaskarjit Sarmah, Mingshu Li, Jingrao Lyu, Sebastian Frank, Nathalia Castellanos, Stefano Pasquali, Dhagash Mehta,
• Abstract summary: We propose a step-by-step recipe for picking a threshold for a given large language models (LLMs) evaluation metric. We then propose concrete and statistically rigorous procedures to determine a threshold for the given LLM evaluation metric using available ground-truth data.
• Score: 0.9423257767158634
• License:
• Abstract: To ensure and monitor large language models (LLMs) reliably, various evaluation metrics have been proposed in the literature. However, there is little research on prescribing a methodology to identify a robust threshold on these metrics even though there are many serious implications of an incorrect choice of the thresholds during deployment of the LLMs. Translating the traditional model risk management (MRM) guidelines within regulated industries such as the financial industry, we propose a step-by-step recipe for picking a threshold for a given LLM evaluation metric. We emphasize that such a methodology should start with identifying the risks of the LLM application under consideration and risk tolerance of the stakeholders. We then propose concrete and statistically rigorous procedures to determine a threshold for the given LLM evaluation metric using available ground-truth data. As a concrete example to demonstrate the proposed methodology at work, we employ it on the Faithfulness metric, as implemented in various publicly available libraries, using the publicly available HaluBench dataset. We also lay a foundation for creating systematic approaches to select thresholds, not only for LLMs but for any GenAI applications.

Related papers

• SafeBench: A Safety Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Large Language Models [75.67623347512368]
  We propose toolns, a comprehensive framework designed for conducting safety evaluations of MLLMs. Our framework consists of a comprehensive harmful query dataset and an automated evaluation protocol. Based on our framework, we conducted large-scale experiments on 15 widely-used open-source MLLMs and 6 commercial MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T17:14:40Z)
• Detecting Training Data of Large Language Models via Expectation Maximization [62.28028046993391]
  Membership inference attacks (MIAs) aim to determine whether a specific instance was part of a target model's training data. Applying MIAs to large language models (LLMs) presents unique challenges due to the massive scale of pre-training data and the ambiguous nature of membership. We introduce EM-MIA, a novel MIA method for LLMs that iteratively refines membership scores and prefix scores via an expectation-maximization algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T03:31:16Z)
• An Actionable Framework for Assessing Bias and Fairness in Large Language Model Use Cases [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) can exhibit bias in a variety of ways. We propose a decision framework that allows practitioners to determine which bias and fairness metrics to use for a specific use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T16:04:44Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
  We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z)
• MLLM-Bench: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs with Per-sample Criteria [49.500322937449326]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have broadened the scope of AI applications. Existing automatic evaluation methodologies for MLLMs are mainly limited in evaluating queries without considering user experiences. We propose a new evaluation paradigm for MLLMs, which is evaluating MLLMs with per-sample criteria using potent MLLM as the judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T12:04:25Z)

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.