Exploring Response Uncertainty in MLLMs: An Empirical Evaluation under Misleading Scenarios

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02708v1
• Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 01:11:28 GMT
• Title: Exploring Response Uncertainty in MLLMs: An Empirical Evaluation under Misleading Scenarios
• Authors: Yunkai Dang, Mengxi Gao, Yibo Yan, Xin Zou, Yanggan Gu, Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu,
• Abstract summary: Existing benchmarks require even 5-15 response attempts per sample to assess uncertainty. We propose a two-stage pipeline: first, we collect MLLMs' responses without misleading information, and then gather misleading ones via specific misleading instructions. Our experiments reveal that all open-source and close-source MLLMs are highly susceptible to misleading instructions, with an average misleading rate exceeding 86%.
• Score: 16.47255259608715
• License:
• Abstract: Ensuring that Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) maintain consistency in their responses is essential for developing trustworthy multimodal intelligence. However, existing benchmarks include many samples where all MLLMs \textit{exhibit high response uncertainty when encountering misleading information}, requiring even 5-15 response attempts per sample to effectively assess uncertainty. Therefore, we propose a two-stage pipeline: first, we collect MLLMs' responses without misleading information, and then gather misleading ones via specific misleading instructions. By calculating the misleading rate, and capturing both correct-to-incorrect and incorrect-to-correct shifts between the two sets of responses, we can effectively metric the model's response uncertainty. Eventually, we establish a \textbf{\underline{M}}ultimodal \textbf{\underline{U}}ncertainty \textbf{\underline{B}}enchmark (\textbf{MUB}) that employs both explicit and implicit misleading instructions to comprehensively assess the vulnerability of MLLMs across diverse domains. Our experiments reveal that all open-source and close-source MLLMs are highly susceptible to misleading instructions, with an average misleading rate exceeding 86\%. To enhance the robustness of MLLMs, we further fine-tune all open-source MLLMs by incorporating explicit and implicit misleading data, which demonstrates a significant reduction in misleading rates. Our code is available at: \href{https://github.com/Yunkai696/MUB}{https://github.com/Yunkai696/MUB}

Related papers

• mR$^2$AG: Multimodal Retrieval-Reflection-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Based VQA [78.45521005703958]
  multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (mRAG) is naturally introduced to provide MLLMs with comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge. We propose a novel framework called textbfRetrieval-textbfReftextbfAugmented textbfGeneration (mR$2$AG) which achieves adaptive retrieval and useful information localization. mR$2$AG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art MLLMs on INFOSEEK and Encyclopedic-VQA
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T16:15:50Z)
• MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluators [53.91199933655421]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant potential as judges for Machine Translation (MT) quality assessment. We introduce a universal and training-free framework, $textbfMQM-APE, to enhance the quality of error annotations predicted by LLM evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T06:43:40Z)
• CaLM: Contrasting Large and Small Language Models to Verify Grounded Generation [76.31621715032558]
  Grounded generation aims to equip language models (LMs) with the ability to produce more credible and accountable responses. We introduce CaLM, a novel verification framework. Our framework empowers smaller LMs, which rely less on parametric memory, to validate the output of larger LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-08T06:04:55Z)
• 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)
• CyberSecEval 2: A Wide-Ranging Cybersecurity Evaluation Suite for Large Language Models [6.931433424951554]
  Large language models (LLMs) introduce new security risks, but there are few comprehensive evaluation suites to measure and reduce these risks. We present BenchmarkName, a novel benchmark to quantify LLM security risks and capabilities. We evaluate multiple state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs, including GPT-4, Mistral, Meta Llama 3 70B-Instruct, and Code Llama.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T20:11:12Z)
• Multicalibration for Confidence Scoring in LLMs [6.948522445499497]
  This paper proposes the use of "multicalibration" to yield interpretable and reliable confidence scores for outputs generated by large language models (LLMs) We show how to form groupings for prompt/completion pairs that are correlated with the probability of correctness via two techniques: clustering within an embedding space, and "self-annotation" We show how our techniques can yield confidence scores that provide substantial improvements in fine-grained measures of both calibration and accuracy compared to existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-06T17:33:37Z)
• Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well? [91.26543768665778]
  This study investigates the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T08:01:23Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• 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)

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.