An Empirical Study Into What Matters for Calibrating Vision-Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07417v2
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 11:40:31 GMT
• Title: An Empirical Study Into What Matters for Calibrating Vision-Language Models
• Authors: Weijie Tu, Weijian Deng, Dylan Campbell, Stephen Gould, Tom Gedeon,
• Abstract summary: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have emerged as the dominant approach for zero-shot recognition. In this study, we explore the calibration properties of VLMs across different architectures, datasets, and training strategies.
• Score: 43.46144923146323
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have emerged as the dominant approach for zero-shot recognition, adept at handling diverse scenarios and significant distribution changes. However, their deployment in risk-sensitive areas requires a deeper understanding of their uncertainty estimation capabilities, a relatively uncharted area. In this study, we explore the calibration properties of VLMs across different architectures, datasets, and training strategies. In particular, we analyze the uncertainty estimation performance of VLMs when calibrated in one domain, label set or hierarchy level, and tested in a different one. Our findings reveal that while VLMs are not inherently calibrated for uncertainty, temperature scaling significantly and consistently improves calibration, even across shifts in distribution and changes in label set. Moreover, VLMs can be calibrated with a very small set of examples. Through detailed experimentation, we highlight the potential applications and importance of our insights, aiming for more reliable and effective use of VLMs in critical, real-world scenarios.

Related papers

• Influences on LLM Calibration: A Study of Response Agreement, Loss Functions, and Prompt Styles [4.477423478591491]
  Calib-n is a novel framework that trains an auxiliary model for confidence estimation. We find that few-shot prompts are the most effective for auxiliary model-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T18:48:42Z)
• Unveiling Uncertainty: A Deep Dive into Calibration and Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models [36.81503322875839]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) combine visual and textual data for tasks such as image captioning and visual question answering. This paper investigates representative MLLMs, focusing on their calibration across various scenarios. We observed miscalibration in their performance, and at the same time, no significant differences in calibration across these scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T09:10:07Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Enhancing Healthcare LLM Trust with Atypical Presentations Recalibration [20.049443396032423]
  Black-box large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in various environments. LLMs often exhibit overconfidence, leading to potential risks and misjudgments. We propose a novel method, textitAtypical presentations Recalibration, which leverages atypical presentations to adjust the model's confidence estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T03:45:35Z)
• Uncertainty Aware Learning for Language Model Alignment [97.36361196793929]
  We propose uncertainty-aware learning (UAL) to improve the model alignment of different task scenarios. We implement UAL in a simple fashion -- adaptively setting the label smoothing value of training according to the uncertainty of individual samples. Experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that our UAL significantly and consistently outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T11:37:45Z)
• Uncertainty Estimation and Quantification for LLMs: A Simple Supervised Approach [6.209293868095268]
  We study the problem of uncertainty estimation and calibration for LLMs. We propose a supervised approach that leverages labeled datasets to estimate the uncertainty in LLMs' responses. Our method is easy to implement and adaptable to different levels of model accessibility including black box, grey box, and white box.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T17:10:35Z)
• Calibrating Large Language Models with Sample Consistency [76.23956851098598]
  We explore the potential of deriving confidence from the distribution of multiple randomly sampled model generations, via three measures of consistency. Results show that consistency-based calibration methods outperform existing post-hoc approaches. We offer practical guidance on choosing suitable consistency metrics for calibration, tailored to the characteristics of various LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T16:15:20Z)
• On Task Performance and Model Calibration with Supervised and Self-Ensembled In-Context Learning [71.44986275228747]
  In-context learning (ICL) has become an efficient approach propelled by the recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) However, both paradigms are prone to suffer from the critical problem of overconfidence (i.e., miscalibration)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T11:55:10Z)
• Learning Calibrated Uncertainties for Domain Shift: A Distributionally Robust Learning Approach [150.8920602230832]
  We propose a framework for learning calibrated uncertainties under domain shifts. In particular, the density ratio estimation reflects the closeness of a target (test) sample to the source (training) distribution. We show that our proposed method generates calibrated uncertainties that benefit downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T02:10:54Z)

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.