Knowing When to Answer: Adaptive Confidence Refinement for Reliable Audio-Visual Question Answering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.04924v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 08:35:33 GMT
• Title: Knowing When to Answer: Adaptive Confidence Refinement for Reliable Audio-Visual Question Answering
• Authors: Dinh Phu Tran, Jihoon Jeong, Saad Wazir, Seongah Kim, Thao Do, Cem Subakan, Daeyoung Kim,
• Abstract summary: We present a formal problem formulation for textitReliable Audio-Visual Question Answering ($mathcalR$-AVQA), where we prefer abstention over answering incorrectly.<n>We propose Adaptive Confidence Refinement (ACR), a lightweight method to further enhance the performance of $mathcalR$-AVQA.
• Score: 15.39457034915546
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We present a formal problem formulation for \textit{Reliable} Audio-Visual Question Answering ($\mathcal{R}$-AVQA), where we prefer abstention over answering incorrectly. While recent AVQA models have high accuracy, their ability to identify when they are likely wrong and their consequent abstention from answering remain underexplored areas of research. To fill this gap, we explore several approaches and then propose Adaptive Confidence Refinement (ACR), a lightweight method to further enhance the performance of $\mathcal{R}$-AVQA. Our key insight is that the Maximum Softmax Probability (MSP) is Bayes-optimal only under strong calibration, a condition usually not met in deep neural networks, particularly in multimodal models. Instead of replacing MSP, our ACR maintains it as a primary confidence signal and applies input-adaptive residual corrections when MSP is deemed unreliable. ACR introduces two learned heads: i) a Residual Risk Head that predicts low-magnitude correctness residuals that MSP does not capture, and ii) a Confidence Gating Head to determine MSP trustworthiness. Our experiments and theoretical analysis show that ACR consistently outperforms existing methods on in- and out-of-disrtibution, and data bias settings across three different AVQA architectures, establishing a solid foundation for $\mathcal{R}$-AVQA task. The code and checkpoints will be available upon acceptance \href{https://github.com/PhuTran1005/R-AVQA}{at here}

Related papers

• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• LEC: Linear Expectation Constraints for False-Discovery Control in Selective Prediction and Routing Systems [95.35293543918762]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate unreliable answers, while uncertainty methods fail to fully distinguish correct from incorrect predictions.<n>We address this issue through the lens of false discovery rate (FDR) control, ensuring that among all accepted predictions, the proportion of errors does not exceed a target risk level.<n>We propose LEC, which reinterprets selective prediction as a constrained decision problem by enforcing a Linear Expectation Constraint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T11:27:09Z)
• Refine and Align: Confidence Calibration through Multi-Agent Interaction in VQA [8.879640496857661]
  We introduce AlignVQA, a debate-based multi-agent framework for Visual Question Answering.<n>We find that more calibrated specialized agents produce better aligned confidences.<n>We also introduce a novel differentiable calibration-aware loss function called aligncal to fine-tune the specialized agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-14T11:08:21Z)
• Confidence-Based Response Abstinence: Improving LLM Trustworthiness via Activation-Based Uncertainty Estimation [7.3923284353934875]
  We propose a method for confidence estimation in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems that aligns closely with the correctness of large language model (LLM) outputs.<n>Our approach extends prior uncertainty quantification methods by leveraging raw feed-forward network (FFN) activations as auto-regressive signals.<n>Our results demonstrate that activation-based confidence modeling offers a scalable, architecture-aware path toward trustworthy RAG deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-15T16:55:56Z)
• Sample Smart, Not Hard: Correctness-First Decoding for Better Reasoning in LLMs [72.82403830490084]
  We argue that the decoding rule should be calibrated by correctness, not confidence alone.<n>We propose simple strategies that achieve this goal: Greedy-Threshold makes sampling greedy at very low confidence steps.<n>Together, our findings challenge prevailings about decoding under uncertainty and show gains across math and general reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T14:46:12Z)
• Trusted Uncertainty in Large Language Models: A Unified Framework for Confidence Calibration and Risk-Controlled Refusal [31.458406135473805]
  We present UniCR, a unified framework that turns heterogeneous uncertainty evidence into a calibrated probability of correctness.<n>UniCR learns a lightweight calibration head with temperature scaling and proper scoring.<n>Experiments on short-form QA, code generation with execution tests, and retrieval-augmented long-form QA show consistent improvements in calibration metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T13:14:58Z)
• COIN: Uncertainty-Guarding Selective Question Answering for Foundation Models with Provable Risk Guarantees [51.5976496056012]
  COIN is an uncertainty-guarding selection framework that calibrates statistically valid thresholds to filter a single generated answer per question.<n>COIN estimates the empirical error rate on a calibration set and applies confidence interval methods to establish a high-probability upper bound on the true error rate.<n>We demonstrate COIN's robustness in risk control, strong test-time power in retaining admissible answers, and predictive efficiency under limited calibration data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T07:04:49Z)
• Probabilities of Chat LLMs Are Miscalibrated but Still Predict Correctness on Multiple-Choice Q&A [0.6144680854063939]
  We study 15 large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned for chat.<n>We find that their maximum softmax probabilities (MSPs) are consistently miscalibrated on multiple-choice Q&A.<n>We show that this hypothesis holds for models which perform well on the underlying Q&A task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T18:24:47Z)
• Understanding, Predicting and Better Resolving Q-Value Divergence in Offline-RL [86.0987896274354]
  We first identify a fundamental pattern, self-excitation, as the primary cause of Q-value estimation divergence in offline RL. We then propose a novel Self-Excite Eigenvalue Measure (SEEM) metric to measure the evolving property of Q-network at training. For the first time, our theory can reliably decide whether the training will diverge at an early stage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-06T17:57:44Z)
• 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.