Can We Trust LLMs? Mitigate Overconfidence Bias in LLMs through Knowledge Transfer

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16856v1
• Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 06:06:36 GMT
• Title: Can We Trust LLMs? Mitigate Overconfidence Bias in LLMs through Knowledge Transfer
• Authors: Haoyan Yang, Yixuan Wang, Xingyin Xu, Hanyuan Zhang, Yirong Bian,
• Abstract summary: The study explores mitigating overconfidence bias in LLMs to improve their reliability. We introduce a knowledge transfer (KT) method utilizing chain of thoughts, where "big" LLMs impart knowledge to "small" LLMs via detailed, sequential reasoning paths. This method uses advanced reasoning of larger models to fine-tune smaller models, enabling them to produce more accurate predictions with calibrated confidence.
• Score: 7.677725180686651
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The study explores mitigating overconfidence bias in LLMs to improve their reliability. We introduce a knowledge transfer (KT) method utilizing chain of thoughts, where "big" LLMs impart knowledge to "small" LLMs via detailed, sequential reasoning paths. This method uses advanced reasoning of larger models to fine-tune smaller models, enabling them to produce more accurate predictions with calibrated confidence. Experimental evaluation using multiple-choice questions and sentiment analysis across diverse datasets demonstrated the KT method's superiority over the vanilla and question-answer pair (QA) fine-tuning methods. The most significant improvement in three key metrics, where the KT method outperformed the vanilla and QA methods by an average of 55.3% and 43.1%, respectively. These findings underscore the KT method's potential in enhancing model trustworthiness and accuracy, offering precise outputs with well-matched confidence levels across various contexts.

Related papers

• Dynamic Uncertainty Ranking: Enhancing In-Context Learning for Long-Tail Knowledge in LLMs [50.29035873837]
  Large language models (LLMs) can learn vast amounts of knowledge from diverse domains during pre-training. Long-tail knowledge from specialized domains is often scarce and underrepresented, rarely appearing in the models' memorization. We propose a reinforcement learning-based dynamic uncertainty ranking method for ICL that accounts for the varying impact of each retrieved sample on LLM predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T03:42:17Z)
• Factual Confidence of LLMs: on Reliability and Robustness of Current Estimators [6.403926452181712]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to be unreliable in the factuality of their answers. We present a survey and empirical comparison of estimators of factual confidence. Our experiments indicate that trained hidden-state probes provide the most reliable confidence estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:11:37Z)
• UBENCH: Benchmarking Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Multiple Choice Questions [10.28688988951815]
  UBENCH is a benchmark for evaluating large language models. It includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. We also evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T16:50:38Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Enhancing Confidence Expression in Large Language Models Through Learning from Past Experience [41.06726400259579]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable performance across various downstream tasks. We propose a method of Learning from Past experience (LePe) to enhance the capability for confidence expression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T06:47:49Z)
• Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) Improves Confidence Calibration of Large Language Models [84.94220787791389]
  We propose Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) prompting, which improves the LLM calibration in two steps. Experiments show that FaR achieves significantly better calibration; it lowers the Expected Error by 23.5%. FaR even elicits the capability of verbally expressing concerns in less confident scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T01:37:23Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification [91.72588235407379]
  The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive evaluation methods. We introduce a new benchmarking approach for LLMs that integrates uncertainty quantification. Our findings reveal that: I) LLMs with higher accuracy may exhibit lower certainty; II) Larger-scale LLMs may display greater uncertainty compared to their smaller counterparts; and III) Instruction-finetuning tends to increase the uncertainty of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T14:29:17Z)
• Quantifying Uncertainty in Answers from any Language Model and Enhancing their Trustworthiness [16.35655151252159]
  We introduce BSDetector, a method for detecting bad and speculative answers from a pretrained Large Language Model. Our uncertainty quantification technique works for any LLM accessible only via a black-box API.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T17:53:25Z)
• Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs [60.61002524947733]
  Previous confidence elicitation methods rely on white-box access to internal model information or model fine-tuning. This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of black-box approaches for uncertainty estimation. We define a systematic framework with three components: prompting strategies for eliciting verbalized confidence, sampling methods for generating multiple responses, and aggregation techniques for computing consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-22T17:31:44Z)

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.