Mirror-Consistency: Harnessing Inconsistency in Majority Voting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10857v1
• Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2024 03:41:08 GMT
• Title: Mirror-Consistency: Harnessing Inconsistency in Majority Voting
• Authors: Siyuan Huang, Zhiyuan Ma, Jintao Du, Changhua Meng, Weiqiang Wang, Zhouhan Lin,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 54.30719306011487
• License:
• Abstract: Self-Consistency, a widely-used decoding strategy, significantly boosts the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it depends on the plurality voting rule, which focuses on the most frequent answer while overlooking all other minority responses. These inconsistent minority views often illuminate areas of uncertainty within the model's generation process. To address this limitation, we present Mirror-Consistency, an enhancement of the standard Self-Consistency approach. Our method incorporates a 'reflective mirror' into the self-ensemble decoding process and enables LLMs to critically examine inconsistencies among multiple generations. Additionally, just as humans use the mirror to better understand themselves, we propose using Mirror-Consistency to enhance the sample-based confidence calibration methods, which helps to mitigate issues of overconfidence. Our experimental results demonstrate that Mirror-Consistency yields superior performance in both reasoning accuracy and confidence calibration compared to Self-Consistency.

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)
• Decompose and Compare Consistency: Measuring VLMs' Answer Reliability via Task-Decomposition Consistency Comparison [22.438863942925973]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T17:00:29Z)
• Dynamic Correlation Learning and Regularization for Multi-Label Confidence Calibration [60.95748658638956]
  This paper introduces the Multi-Label Confidence task, aiming to provide well-calibrated confidence scores in multi-label scenarios. Existing single-label calibration methods fail to account for category correlations, which are crucial for addressing semantic confusion. We propose the Dynamic Correlation Learning and Regularization algorithm, which leverages multi-grained semantic correlations to better model semantic confusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T13:26:21Z)
• 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)
• Confidence Calibration and Rationalization for LLMs via Multi-Agent Deliberation [18.815226646364476]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T02:40:43Z)
• Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection [90.71323430635593]
  We propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each candidate answer. This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:38:26Z)
• Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives [45.87069217634753]
  Research indicates without external feedback, Large Language Model's intrinsic reflection is unstable. Our investigation unveils that the key bottleneck is the quality of the self-evaluated feedback. We advocate Self-Contrast: It adaptively explores diverse solving perspectives tailored to the request, contrasts the differences, and summarizes these discrepancies into a checklist which could be used to re-examine and eliminate discrepancies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T00:32:33Z)
• 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.