TrustVis: A Multi-Dimensional Trustworthiness Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to revolutionize Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications, critical concerns about their trustworthiness persist, particularly in safety and robustness. To address these challenges, we introduce TrustVis, an automated evaluation framework that provides a comprehensive assessment of LLM trustworthiness. A key feature of our framework is its interactive user interface, designed to offer intuitive visualizations of trustworthiness metrics. By integrating well-known perturbation methods like AutoDAN and employing majority voting across various evaluation methods, TrustVis not only provides reliable results but also makes complex evaluation processes accessible to users. Preliminary case studies on models like Vicuna-7b, Llama2-7b, and GPT-3.5 demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in identifying safety and robustness vulnerabilities, while the interactive interface allows users to explore results in detail, empowering targeted model improvements. Video Link: https://youtu.be/k1TrBqNVg8g
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".