DebUnc: Mitigating Hallucinations in Large Language Model Agent Communication with Uncertainty Estimations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.06426v1
• Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:15:01 GMT
• Title: DebUnc: Mitigating Hallucinations in Large Language Model Agent Communication with Uncertainty Estimations
• Authors: Luke Yoffe, Alfonso Amayuelas, William Yang Wang,
• Abstract summary: DebUnc is a multi-agent debate framework that uses uncertainty metrics to assess agent confidence levels. We adapted the attention mechanism to adjust token weights based on confidence levels. Our evaluations show that attention-based methods are particularly effective.
• Score: 52.242449026151846
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: To enhance Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities, multi-agent debates have been introduced, where multiple LLMs discuss solutions to a problem over several rounds of debate. However, LLMs often produce incorrect responses that appear deceptively confident, which can mislead other agents. This is partly because agents do not express their confidence levels during standard debates. To address this, we introduce DebUnc, a multi-agent debate framework that uses uncertainty metrics to assess agent confidence levels. We adapted the LLM attention mechanism to adjust token weights based on confidence levels and also explored using textual prompts to convey confidence. Our evaluations across various benchmarks show that attention-based methods are particularly effective, and that as uncertainty metrics evolve, performance will continue to increase. The code is available at https://github.com/lukeyoffe/debunc

Related papers

• 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)
• Semantic Density: Uncertainty Quantification for Large Language Models through Confidence Measurement in Semantic Space [14.715989394285238]
  Existing Large Language Models (LLMs) do not have an inherent functionality to provide the users with an uncertainty/confidence metric for each response it generates. A new framework is proposed in this paper to address these issues. Semantic density extracts uncertainty/confidence information for each response from a probability distribution perspective in semantic space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T17:13:49Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• Towards Uncertainty-Aware Language Agent [10.227089771963943]
  We present the Uncertainty-Aware Language Agent (UALA), a framework that orchestrates the interaction between the agent and the external world using uncertainty quantification. Our experiments demonstrate that UALA brings a significant improvement of performance, while having a substantially lower reliance on the external world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T08:48:21Z)
• Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs [7.7433783185451075]
  We benchmark a range of debating and prompting strategies to explore the trade-offs between cost, time, and accuracy. We find that multi-agent debating systems, in their current form, do not reliably outperform other proposed prompting strategies. We build on these results to offer insights into improving debating strategies, such as adjusting agent agreement levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T05:54:41Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents [88.45506148281379]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly smart and autonomous, targeting real-world pragmatic missions beyond traditional NLP tasks. We present AgentBench, a benchmark that currently consists of 8 distinct environments to assess LLM-as-Agent's reasoning and decision-making abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T16:08:11Z)
• Generating with Confidence: Uncertainty Quantification for Black-box Large Language Models [37.63939774027709]
  Large language models (LLMs) specializing in natural language generation (NLG) have recently started exhibiting promising capabilities. We propose and compare several confidence/uncertainty measures, applying them to *selective NLG* where unreliable results could either be ignored or yielded for further assessment. Results reveal that a simple measure for the semantic dispersion can be a reliable predictor of the quality of LLM responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T16:31:26Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)

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.