TriEval: A Resource-Efficient Pipeline for LLM Bias, Toxicity, and Truthfulness Assessment

Assessing whether Large Language Models outputs are factually grounded, epistemically calibrated, and methodologically reproducible is a prerequisite for responsible AI deployment. Yet auditing LLMs remains inaccessible to non-technical practitioners: existing tools require programming expertise and non-trivial environment setup, and cloud-hosted platforms transmit evaluation data to external services, creating barriers for domain experts and compliance officers legally responsible for AI oversight. We introduce LLM-FACETS (LLM FActuality Cross-EvaluaTion System): an open-source framework with a browser-accessible interface and a plugin architecture, structured around three practitioner profiles (technical experts, domain experts, compliance officers) that mirror the stakeholder categories identified in the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. The architecture makes data flows explicit: deterministic metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore) run entirely within the self-hosted server with no outbound transmission; LLM-judge metrics contact external APIs explicitly, with users retaining full credential control. The framework operationalizes transparency through three mechanisms: token-level log-probability visualization for epistemic uncertainty, multi-judge consensus to mitigate judge bias, and RAG Triad metrics (Faithfulness, Answer Relevance, Context Relevance) to detect and localize hallucinations. A plugin architecture allows any new metric or dataset to be integrated without modifying the evaluation pipeline. The open-source implementation enables cross-checking across multiple metrics targeting the same property, ensuring reproducibility and decoupling AI accountability from the teams building the systems assessed. We verify the framework through cross-validation of 18 metric implementations against canonical reference libraries.

In recent years, the field of artificial intelligence has undergone a paradigm shift from task-specific small-scale models to general-purpose large language models (LLMs). With the rapid iteration of LLMs, objective, quantitative, and comprehensive evaluation of their capabilities has become a critical link in advancing technological development. Currently, the mainstream static benchmark dataset-based evaluation methods face challenges such as the diversity of task types, inconsistent evaluation criteria, and fragmentation of data and processing workflows, making it difficult to efficiently conduct cross-domain and large-scale model evaluation. To address the aforementioned issues, this paper proposes and open-sources OpenCompass, a one-stop, scalable, and high-concurrency-supported general-purpose LLM evaluation platform. Adhering to the design philosophy of modularization and component decoupling, the platform boasts three core advantages: high compatibility, flexibility, and high concurrency. The core architecture of OpenCompass comprises five key components: the Configuration System, Task Partitioning Module, Execution and Scheduling Module, Task Execution Unit, and Result Visualization Module. Its workflow provides rule-based, LLM-as-a-Judge, and cascaded evaluators to adapt to the requirements of different task scenarios. Supporting mainstream benchmark datasets across multiple domains, including knowledge, reasoning, computation, science, language, code, etc., the platform offers a unified and efficient LLM evaluation tool for both academia and industry, facilitating the accurate identification of strengths and weaknesses of LLMs as well as their subsequent optimization.

The rapid adoption of LLMs in both research and industry highlights the challenges of deploying them safely and reveals a gap in the systematic evaluation of toxicity benchmarks. As organizations increasingly rely on these benchmarks to certify models for customer-facing applications and automated moderation, unrecognized evaluation biases could lead to the deployment of vulnerable or unsafe systems. This work investigates the robustness of established benchmarking setups and examines how to measure currently neglected intrinsic biases, such as those related to model choice, metrics, and task types. Our experiments uncover significant discrepancies in benchmark behaviors when evaluation setups are altered. Specifically, shifting the task from text completion to summarization increases the tendency of benchmarks to flag content as harmful. Additionally, certain benchmarks fail to maintain consistent behavior when the input data domain is changed. Furthermore, we observe model-specific instabilities, demonstrating a clear need for more robust and comprehensive safety evaluation frameworks.