Confidence Improves Self-Consistency in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06233v1
• Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:10:29 GMT
• Title: Confidence Improves Self-Consistency in LLMs
• Authors: Amir Taubenfeld, Tom Sheffer, Eran Ofek, Amir Feder, Ariel Goldstein, Zorik Gekhman, Gal Yona,
• Abstract summary: We introduce Confidence-Informed Self-Consistency (CISC) CISC performs a weighted majority vote based on confidence scores obtained directly from the model. When tested on nine models and four datasets, CISC outperforms self-consistency in nearly all configurations.
• Score: 9.764747744761085
• License:
• Abstract: Self-consistency decoding enhances LLMs' performance on reasoning tasks by sampling diverse reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer. However, it is computationally expensive, as sampling many of these (lengthy) paths is required to increase the chances that the correct answer emerges as the most frequent one. To address this, we introduce Confidence-Informed Self-Consistency (CISC). CISC performs a weighted majority vote based on confidence scores obtained directly from the model. By prioritizing high-confidence paths, it can identify the correct answer with a significantly smaller sample size. When tested on nine models and four datasets, CISC outperforms self-consistency in nearly all configurations, reducing the required number of reasoning paths by over 40% on average. In addition, we introduce the notion of within-question confidence evaluation, after showing that standard evaluation methods are poor predictors of success in distinguishing correct and incorrect answers to the same question. In fact, the most calibrated confidence method proved to be the least effective for CISC. Lastly, beyond these practical implications, our results and analyses show that LLMs can effectively judge the correctness of their own outputs, contributing to the ongoing debate on this topic.

Related papers

• CER: Confidence Enhanced Reasoning in LLMs [2.4392539322920763]
  We introduce an uncertainty-aware framework designed to enhance the accuracy of Large Language Models responses. We quantify the confidence of intermediate answers such as numerical results in mathematical reasoning and proper nouns in open-domain generation. Results consistently validate the effectiveness of our novel confidence aggregation method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T15:16:42Z)
• Crowd Comparative Reasoning: Unlocking Comprehensive Evaluations for LLM-as-a-Judge [90.8674158031845]
  We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses. This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed chain-of-thought (CoT) judgment. Our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T03:31:06Z)
• On Verbalized Confidence Scores for LLMs [25.160810008907397]
  Uncertainty quantification for large language models (LLMs) can establish more human trust into their responses. This work focuses on asking the LLM itself to verbalize its uncertainty with a confidence score as part of its output tokens. We assess the reliability of verbalized confidence scores with respect to different datasets, models, and prompt methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T11:10:36Z)
• Fact-Level Confidence Calibration and Self-Correction [64.40105513819272]
  We propose a Fact-Level framework that calibrates confidence to relevance-weighted correctness at the fact level. We also develop Confidence-Guided Fact-level Self-Correction ($textbfConFix$), which uses high-confidence facts within a response as additional knowledge to improve low-confidence ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T14:15:18Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Reasoning Aware Self-Consistency: Leveraging Reasoning Paths for Efficient LLM Sampling [9.44858963874474]
  Self-Consistency mitigates hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) by sampling multiple reasoning paths. We introduce Reasoning-Aware Self-Consistency (RASC), a novel framework that enhances sampling efficiency and reasoning faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T05:14:59Z)
• 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)
• Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback [91.22679548111127]
  A trustworthy real-world prediction system should produce well-calibrated confidence scores. We show that verbalized confidences emitted as output tokens are typically better-calibrated than the model's conditional probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:12:33Z)

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.