We argue that the Declarative Self-improving Python (DSPy) optimizers are a way to align the large language model (LLM) prompts and their evaluations to the human annotations. We present a comparative analysis of five teleprompter algorithms, namely, Cooperative Prompt Optimization (COPRO), Multi-Stage Instruction Prompt Optimization (MIPRO), BootstrapFewShot, BootstrapFewShot with Optuna, and K-Nearest Neighbor Few Shot, within the DSPy framework with respect to their ability to align with human evaluations. As a concrete example, we focus on optimizing the prompt to align hallucination detection (using LLM as a judge) to human annotated ground truth labels for a publicly available benchmark dataset. Our experiments demonstrate that optimized prompts can outperform various benchmark methods to detect hallucination, and certain telemprompters outperform the others in at least these experiments.

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.

We initiate a novel approach to explain the out of sample performance of random forest (RF) models by exploiting the fact that any RF can be formulated as an adaptive weighted K nearest-neighbors model. Specifically, we use the proximity between points in the feature space learned by the RF to re-write random forest predictions exactly as a weighted average of the target labels of training data points. This linearity facilitates a local notion of explainability of RF predictions that generates attributions for any model prediction across observations in the training set, and thereby complements established methods like SHAP, which instead generates attributions for a model prediction across dimensions of the feature space. We demonstrate this approach in the context of a bond pricing model trained on US corporate bond trades, and compare our approach to various existing approaches to model explainability.

For a financial analyst, the question and answer (Q\&A) segment of the company financial report is a crucial piece of information for various analysis and investment decisions. However, extracting valuable insights from the Q\&A section has posed considerable challenges as the conventional methods such as detailed reading and note-taking lack scalability and are susceptible to human errors, and Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and similar techniques encounter difficulties in accurately processing unstructured transcript text, often missing subtle linguistic nuances that drive investor decisions. Here, we demonstrate the utilization of Large Language Models (LLMs) to efficiently and rapidly extract information from earnings report transcripts while ensuring high accuracy transforming the extraction process as well as reducing hallucination by combining retrieval-augmented generation technique as well as metadata. We evaluate the outcomes of various LLMs with and without using our proposed approach based on various objective metrics for evaluating Q\&A systems, and empirically demonstrate superiority of our method.