# LeCov: Multi-level Testing Criteria for Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10474 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10474/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 48 of its 65 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Aug 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 48)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [A Survey of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.18223/) (2023)
- [The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00027/) (2020)
- [Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03341/) (2023)
- [RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.11462/) (2020)
- [Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06674/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.04657/) (2023)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08896/) (2023)
- [AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04451/) (2023)
- [Siren's Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.01219/) (2023)
- [CCNet: Extracting High Quality Monolingual Datasets from Web Crawl Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.00359/) (2019)
- [DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.11698/) (2023)
- [Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.05374/) (2023)
- [A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real World](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.03274/) (2022)
- [DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testing of Deep Learning Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.06640/) (2017)
- [Robots That Ask For Help: Uncertainty Alignment for Large Language Model Planners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.01928/) (2023)
- [TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05561/) (2024)
- [Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizons](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.10742/) (2019)
- [SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07045/) (2023)
- [DeepGauge: Multi-Granularity Testing Criteria for Deep Learning Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.07519/) (2018)
- [Guiding Deep Learning System Testing using Surprise Adequacy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.08444/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in many different domains, but because of their limited interpretability, there are questions about how trustworthy they are in various perspectives, e.g., truthfulness and toxicity. Recent research has started developing testing methods for LLMs, aiming to uncover untrustworthy issues, i.e., defects, before deployment. However, systematic and formalized testing criteria are lacking, which hinders a comprehensive assessment of the extent and adequacy of testing exploration. To mitigate this threat, we propose a set of multi-level testing criteria, LeCov, for LLMs. The criteria consider three crucial LLM internal components, i.e., the attention mechanism, feed-forward neurons, and uncertainty, and contain nine types of testing criteria in total. We apply the criteria in two scenarios: test prioritization and coverage-guided testing. The experiment evaluation, on three models and four datasets, demonstrates the usefulness and effectiveness of LeCov.