RECSIP: REpeated Clustering of Scores Improving the Precision

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.12108v1
• Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 12:36:32 GMT
• Title: RECSIP: REpeated Clustering of Scores Improving the Precision
• Authors: André Schamschurko, Nenad Petrovic, Alois Christian Knoll,
• Abstract summary: We introduce the framework REpeated Clustering of Scores Improving the Precision (RECSIP)<n>RECSIP focuses on improving the precision of Large Language Models (LLMs) by asking multiple models in parallel, scoring and clustering their responses to ensure a higher reliability on the response.<n>The evaluation of our reference implementation recsip on the benchmark MMLU-Pro using the models GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini shows an overall increase of 5.8 per cent points compared to the best used model.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The latest research on Large Language Models (LLMs) has demonstrated significant advancement in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, despite this progress, there is still a lack of reliability in these models. This is due to the stochastic architecture of LLMs, which presents a challenge for users attempting to ascertain the reliability of a model's response. These responses may cause serious harm in high-risk environments or expensive failures in industrial contexts. Therefore, we introduce the framework REpeated Clustering of Scores Improving the Precision (RECSIP) which focuses on improving the precision of LLMs by asking multiple models in parallel, scoring and clustering their responses to ensure a higher reliability on the response. The evaluation of our reference implementation recsip on the benchmark MMLU-Pro using the models GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini shows an overall increase of 5.8 per cent points compared to the best used model.

Related papers

• Towards Robust LLMs: an Adversarial Robustness Measurement Framework [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to adversarial perturbations, undermining their reliability in high-stakes applications. We adapt the Robustness Measurement and Assessment framework to quantify LLM resilience against adversarial inputs without requiring access to model parameters. Our work provides a systematic methodology to assess LLM robustness, advancing the development of more reliable language models for real-world deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T16:36:19Z)
• R-PRM: Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling [53.06844294668382]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step. Existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy. We propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM) R-PRM generates seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:23:08Z)
• Collective Reasoning Among LLMs A Framework for Answer Validation Without Ground Truth [0.0]
  This study explores how inter-model consensus enhances response reliability and serves as a proxy for assessing the quality of generated questions. We present a collaborative framework where multiple large language models, namely GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash, work together to generate and respond to complex PhD-level probability questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T06:20:52Z)
• The Dual-use Dilemma in LLMs: Do Empowering Ethical Capacities Make a Degraded Utility? [54.18519360412294]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) must balance between rejecting harmful requests for safety and accommodating legitimate ones for utility.<n>This paper presents a Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) based alignment framework that achieves better overall performance.<n>We analyze experimental results obtained from testing DeepSeek-R1 on our benchmark and reveal the critical ethical concerns raised by this highly acclaimed model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T06:35:01Z)
• Confidence Estimation for LLM-Based Dialogue State Tracking [9.305763502526833]
  Estimation of a model's confidence on its outputs is critical for Conversational AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) We provide an exhaustive exploration of methods, including approaches proposed for open- and closed-weight LLMs. Our findings suggest that fine-tuning open-weight LLMs can result in enhanced AUC performance, indicating better confidence score calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T06:44:26Z)
• 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)
• How Easy is It to Fool Your Multimodal LLMs? An Empirical Analysis on Deceptive Prompts [54.07541591018305]
  We present MAD-Bench, a benchmark that contains 1000 test samples divided into 5 categories, such as non-existent objects, count of objects, and spatial relationship. We provide a comprehensive analysis of popular MLLMs, ranging from GPT-4v, Reka, Gemini-Pro, to open-sourced models, such as LLaVA-NeXT and MiniCPM-Llama3. While GPT-4o achieves 82.82% accuracy on MAD-Bench, the accuracy of any other model in our experiments ranges from 9% to 50%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T18:31:27Z)
• Enhancing Large Language Model Performance To Answer Questions and Extract Information More Accurately [2.1715455600756646]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) generate responses to questions. Their effectiveness is often hindered by sub-optimal quality of answers and occasional failures to provide accurate responses to questions. To address these challenges, a fine-tuning process is employed, involving feedback and examples to refine models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-27T00:18:07Z)
• Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese [86.73527292670308]
  This paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames. It encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T17:18:21Z)
• CATfOOD: Counterfactual Augmented Training for Improving Out-of-Domain Performance and Calibration [59.48235003469116]
  We show that data augmentation consistently enhances OOD performance. We also show that CF augmented models which are easier to calibrate also exhibit much lower entropy when assigning importance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T16:16:40Z)
• Towards Reliable and Fluent Large Language Models: Incorporating Feedback Learning Loops in QA Systems [10.58737969057445]
  We build a dataset to train a critic model capable of evaluating the citation, correctness, and fluency of responses generated by large language models. We propose an automated feedback mechanism that leverages the critic model to offer real-time feedback on heterogeneous aspects of generated text. Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach, including a 4% precision increase in citation and an approximately 8% enhancement in the MAUVE metric for fluency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T09:39:53Z)
• Pareto Optimal Learning for Estimating Large Language Model Errors [12.21899680905672]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive abilities in many applications. We present a method that generates a risk score to estimate the probability of error in an LLM response by integrating multiple sources of information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-28T21:11:15Z)
• Certified Adversarial Defenses Meet Out-of-Distribution Corruptions: Benchmarking Robustness and Simple Baselines [65.0803400763215]
  This work critically examines how adversarial robustness guarantees change when state-of-the-art certifiably robust models encounter out-of-distribution data. We propose a novel data augmentation scheme, FourierMix, that produces augmentations to improve the spectral coverage of the training data. We find that FourierMix augmentations help eliminate the spectral bias of certifiably robust models enabling them to achieve significantly better robustness guarantees on a range of OOD benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-01T17:11:22Z)

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.