Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

MKA: Leveraging Cross-Lingual Consensus for Model Abstention

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

arxiv 2503.23687 v1 pith:I2XVVMQN submitted 2025-03-31 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords theypipelinemodelmultilingualabstaincalibrateconfidenceeven
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Reliability of LLMs is questionable even as they get better at more tasks. A wider adoption of LLMs is contingent on whether they are usably factual. And if they are not, on whether they can properly calibrate their confidence in their responses. This work focuses on utilizing the multilingual knowledge of an LLM to inform its decision to abstain or answer when prompted. We develop a multilingual pipeline to calibrate the model's confidence and let it abstain when uncertain. We run several multilingual models through the pipeline to profile them across different languages. We find that the performance of the pipeline varies by model and language, but that in general they benefit from it. This is evidenced by the accuracy improvement of $71.2\%$ for Bengali over a baseline performance without the pipeline. Even a high-resource language like English sees a $15.5\%$ improvement. These results hint at possible further improvements.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research Ideas

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A randomized execution study with 43 experts shows that LLM-generated research ideas lose more of their appeal than human ideas when actually implemented, reversing part of their ideation-stage advantage.

Pith tools