Confidence Calibration and Rationalization for LLMs via Multi-Agent Deliberation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.09127v3
• Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 16:38:23 GMT
• Title: Confidence Calibration and Rationalization for LLMs via Multi-Agent Deliberation
• Authors: Ruixin Yang, Dheeraj Rajagopal, Shirley Anugrah Hayati, Bin Hu, Dongyeop Kang,
• Abstract summary: Existing calibration methods for large language models (LLMs) focus on estimating or eliciting individual confidence without taking full advantage of the "Collective Wisdom" We propose Collaborative, a post-hoc training-free calibration strategy that leverages the collaborative and expressive capabilities of multiple tool-augmented LLM agents in a simulated group deliberation process.
• Score: 18.815226646364476
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Uncertainty estimation is a significant issue for current large language models (LLMs) that are generally poorly calibrated and over-confident, especially with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Unlike humans, whose decisions and confidences not only stem from intrinsic beliefs but can also be adjusted through daily observations, existing calibration methods for LLMs focus on estimating or eliciting individual confidence without taking full advantage of the "Collective Wisdom": the interaction among multiple LLMs that can collectively improve both accuracy and calibration. In this work, we propose Collaborative Calibration, a post-hoc training-free calibration strategy that leverages the collaborative and expressive capabilities of multiple tool-augmented LLM agents in a simulated group deliberation process. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Collaborative Calibration on generative QA tasks across various domains, showing its potential in harnessing the rationalization of collectively calibrated confidence assessments and improving the reliability of model predictions.

Related papers

• Graph-based Confidence Calibration for Large Language Models [22.394717844099684]
  We propose a novel method to develop a well-calibrated confidence estimation model. We use a weighted graph to represent the consistency among the large language models' responses to a question. We then train a graph neural network to estimate the probability of correct responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T20:36:44Z)
• Mirror-Consistency: Harnessing Inconsistency in Majority Voting [54.30719306011487]
  We present Mirror-Consistency, an enhancement of the standard Self-Consistency approach. Mirror-Consistency incorporates a'reflective mirror' into the self-ensemble decoding process. We show that Mirror-Consistency yields superior performance in both reasoning accuracy and confidence calibration compared to Self-Consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T03:41:08Z)
• Confidence Estimation for LLM-Based Dialogue State Tracking [9.305763502526833]
  Estimation of a model's confidence on its outputs is critical for Conversational AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) We provide an exhaustive exploration of methods, including approaches proposed for open- and closed-weight LLMs. Our findings suggest that fine-tuning open-weight LLMs can result in enhanced AUC performance, indicating better confidence score calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T06:44:26Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Calibrating Long-form Generations from Large Language Models [34.72041258464477]
  Large Language Models' (LLMs) confidence scores should align with the actual likelihood of its responses being correct. Current confidence elicitation methods and calibration metrics rely on a binary true/false assessment of response correctness. We introduce a unified calibration framework, in which both the correctness of the LLMs' responses and their associated confidence levels are treated as distributions across a range of scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T17:00:32Z)
• 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)
• On Diversified Preferences of Large Language Model Alignment [51.26149027399505]
  This paper presents the first quantitative analysis of the experimental scaling law for reward models with varying sizes. Our analysis reveals that the impact of diversified human preferences depends on both model size and data size. Larger models with sufficient capacity mitigate the negative effects of diverse preferences, while smaller models struggle to accommodate them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T16:17:15Z)
• On the Calibration of Large Language Models and Alignment [63.605099174744865]
  Confidence calibration serves as a crucial tool for gauging the reliability of deep models. We conduct a systematic examination of the calibration of aligned language models throughout the entire construction process. Our work sheds light on whether popular LLMs are well-calibrated and how the training process influences model calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T08:57:55Z)
• Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback [91.22679548111127]
  A trustworthy real-world prediction system should produce well-calibrated confidence scores. We show that verbalized confidences emitted as output tokens are typically better-calibrated than the model's conditional probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:12:33Z)

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.