Decompose and Compare Consistency: Measuring VLMs' Answer Reliability via Task-Decomposition Consistency Comparison

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07840v3
• Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 02:03:26 GMT
• Title: Decompose and Compare Consistency: Measuring VLMs' Answer Reliability via Task-Decomposition Consistency Comparison
• Authors: Qian Yang, Weixiang Yan, Aishwarya Agrawal,
• Abstract summary: We propose Decompose and Compare Consistency (DeCC) for reliability measurement. By comparing the consistency between the direct answer generated using the VLM's internal reasoning process, DeCC measures the reliability of VLM's direct answer.
• Score: 22.438863942925973
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite tremendous advancements, current state-of-the-art Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are still far from perfect. They tend to hallucinate and may generate biased responses. In such circumstances, having a way to assess the reliability of a given response generated by a VLM is quite useful. Existing methods, such as estimating uncertainty using answer likelihoods or prompt-based confidence generation, often suffer from overconfidence. Other methods use self-consistency comparison but are affected by confirmation biases. To alleviate these, we propose Decompose and Compare Consistency (DeCC) for reliability measurement. By comparing the consistency between the direct answer generated using the VLM's internal reasoning process, and the indirect answers obtained by decomposing the question into sub-questions and reasoning over the sub-answers produced by the VLM, DeCC measures the reliability of VLM's direct answer. Experiments across six vision-language tasks with three VLMs show DeCC's reliability estimation achieves better correlation with task accuracy compared to the existing methods.

Related papers

• Learning to Route with Confidence Tokens [43.63392143501436]
  We study the extent to which large language models can reliably indicate confidence in their answers. We propose Self-REF, a lightweight training strategy to teach LLMs to express confidence in a reliable manner. Compared to conventional approaches such as verbalizing confidence and examining token probabilities, we demonstrate empirically that confidence tokens show significant improvements in downstream routing and rejection learning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T07:28:18Z)
• 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)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established. This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt. We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• SaySelf: Teaching LLMs to Express Confidence with Self-Reflective Rationales [29.33581578047835]
  SaySelf is a training framework that teaches large language models to express more accurate fine-grained confidence estimates. In addition, SaySelf directs LLMs to produce self-reflective rationales that clearly identify gaps in their parametric knowledge. We show that the generated self-reflective rationales are reasonable and can further contribute to the calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T16:21:16Z)
• When to Trust LLMs: Aligning Confidence with Response Quality [49.371218210305656]
  We propose CONfidence-Quality-ORDer-preserving alignment approach (CONQORD) It integrates quality reward and order-preserving alignment reward functions. Experiments demonstrate that CONQORD significantly improves the alignment performance between confidence and response accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T09:42:46Z)
• TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness [58.721012475577716]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T21:12:14Z)
• RCOT: Detecting and Rectifying Factual Inconsistency in Reasoning by Reversing Chain-of-Thought [56.558892336235914]
  Reversing Chain-of-Thought (RCoT) is a novel method to improve large language models' reasoning abilities. RCoT automatically detects and rectifys factual inconsistency in generated solutions. We show that manually written fine-grained feedback can dramatically improve LLMs' reasoning abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T08:02:52Z)

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.