Sample then Identify: A General Framework for Risk Control and Assessment in Multimodal Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08174v2
• Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:34:35 GMT
• Title: Sample then Identify: A General Framework for Risk Control and Assessment in Multimodal Large Language Models
• Authors: Qingni Wang, Tiantian Geng, Zhiyuan Wang, Teng Wang, Bo Fu, Feng Zheng,
• Abstract summary: We introduce TRON, a two-step framework for risk control and assessment. TRON achieves desired error rates bounded by two user-specified risk levels. Deduplicated prediction sets maintain adaptiveness while being more efficient and stable for risk assessment under different risk levels.
• Score: 46.56041622514975
• License:
• Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit promising advancements across various tasks, yet they still encounter significant trustworthiness issues. Prior studies apply Split Conformal Prediction (SCP) in language modeling to construct prediction sets with statistical guarantees. However, these methods typically rely on internal model logits or are restricted to multiple-choice settings, which hampers their generalizability and adaptability in dynamic, open-ended environments. In this paper, we introduce TRON, a two-step framework for risk control and assessment, applicable to any MLLM that supports sampling in both open-ended and closed-ended scenarios. TRON comprises two main components: (1) a novel conformal score to sample response sets of minimum size, and (2) a nonconformity score to identify high-quality responses based on self-consistency theory, controlling the error rates by two specific risk levels. Furthermore, we investigate semantic redundancy in prediction sets within open-ended contexts for the first time, leading to a promising evaluation metric for MLLMs based on average set size. Our comprehensive experiments across four Video Question-Answering (VideoQA) datasets utilizing eight MLLMs show that TRON achieves desired error rates bounded by two user-specified risk levels. Additionally, deduplicated prediction sets maintain adaptiveness while being more efficient and stable for risk assessment under different risk levels.

Related papers

• SafeBench: A Safety Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Large Language Models [75.67623347512368]
  We propose toolns, a comprehensive framework designed for conducting safety evaluations of MLLMs. Our framework consists of a comprehensive harmful query dataset and an automated evaluation protocol. Based on our framework, we conducted large-scale experiments on 15 widely-used open-source MLLMs and 6 commercial MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T17:14:40Z)
• Defining and Evaluating Decision and Composite Risk in Language Models Applied to Natural Language Inference [3.422309388045878]
  Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are known to pose important risks. misplaced confidence arises from over-confidence or under-confidence, that the models have in their inference. We propose an experimental framework consisting of a two-level inference architecture and appropriate metrics for measuring such risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-04T05:24:32Z)
• An Actionable Framework for Assessing Bias and Fairness in Large Language Model Use Cases [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) can exhibit bias in a variety of ways. We propose a decision framework that allows practitioners to determine which bias and fairness metrics to use for a specific use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T16:04:44Z)
• Quantifying Prediction Consistency Under Model Multiplicity in Tabular LLMs [10.494477811252034]
  Fine-tuning large language models can lead to textitfine-tuning multiplicity, where equally well-performing models make conflicting predictions on the same inputs. This raises critical concerns about the robustness and reliability of Tabular LLMs. This work proposes a novel metric to quantify the robustness of individual predictions without expensive model retraining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T22:22:09Z)
• 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)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• Conformal Language Modeling [61.94417935386489]
  We propose a novel approach to conformal prediction for generative language models (LMs) Standard conformal prediction produces prediction sets with rigorous, statistical guarantees. We demonstrate the promise of our approach on multiple tasks in open-domain question answering, text summarization, and radiology report generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T21:55:08Z)
• Collaborative Uncertainty Benefits Multi-Agent Multi-Modal Trajectory Forecasting [39.73793468422024]
  This work first proposes a novel concept, collaborative uncertainty (CU), which models the uncertainty resulting from interaction modules. We build a general CU-aware regression framework with an original permutation-equivariant uncertainty estimator to do both tasks of regression and uncertainty estimation. We apply the proposed framework to current SOTA multi-agent trajectory forecasting systems as a plugin module.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-11T21:17:41Z)
• Mitigating multiple descents: A model-agnostic framework for risk monotonization [84.6382406922369]
  We develop a general framework for risk monotonization based on cross-validation. We propose two data-driven methodologies, namely zero- and one-step, that are akin to bagging and boosting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T17:41:40Z)

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.