REVIEW 2 cited by
Benchmarking Uncertainty Quantification Methods for Large Language Models with LM-Polygraph
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has stimulated researchers to seek effective and efficient approaches to deal with LLM hallucinations and low-quality outputs. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is a key element of machine learning applications in dealing with such challenges. However, research to date on UQ for LLMs has been fragmented in terms of techniques and evaluation methodologies. In this work, we address this issue by introducing a novel benchmark that implements a collection of state-of-the-art UQ baselines and offers an environment for controllable and consistent evaluation of novel UQ techniques over various text generation tasks. Our benchmark also supports the assessment of confidence normalization methods in terms of their ability to provide interpretable scores. Using our benchmark, we conduct a large-scale empirical investigation of UQ and normalization techniques across eleven tasks, identifying the most effective approaches. Code: https://github.com/IINemo/lm-polygraph Benchmark: https://huggingface.co/LM-Polygraph
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Reconsidering LLM Uncertainty Estimation Methods in the Wild
Most LLM uncertainty estimates degrade under distribution shift and adversarial prompts, but simple ensembling of scores at test time improves reliability.
-
ExploreGS: Explorable 3D Scene Reconstruction with Virtual Camera Samplings and Diffusion Priors
Adding information-gain-selected virtual views refined by video diffusion priors to 3D Gaussian Splatting improves arbitrary-view rendering quality.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.