An error is invisible to an edit exactly when it commutes with the edit's answer transform, so the missed errors of any edit suite form its joint centralizer.
Decompose and Compare Consistency: Measuring VLMs' Answer Reliability via Task-Decomposition Consistency Comparison
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Despite tremendous advancements, current state-of-the-art Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are still far from perfect. They tend to hallucinate and may generate biased responses. In such circumstances, having a way to assess the reliability of a given response generated by a VLM is quite useful. Existing methods, such as estimating uncertainty using answer likelihoods or prompt-based confidence generation, often suffer from overconfidence. Other methods use self-consistency comparison but are affected by confirmation biases. To alleviate these, we propose Decompose and Compare Consistency (DeCC) for reliability measurement. By comparing the consistency between the direct answer generated using the VLM's internal reasoning process, and the indirect answers obtained by decomposing the question into sub-questions and reasoning over the sub-answers produced by the VLM, DeCC measures the reliability of VLM's direct answer. Experiments across six vision-language tasks with three VLMs show DeCC's reliability estimation achieves better correlation with task accuracy compared to the existing methods.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.LG 1years
2026 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Consistency Has a Computable Blind Spot: A Commutation Theory of Label-Free Reliability for Vision-Language Figure Reading
An error is invisible to an edit exactly when it commutes with the edit's answer transform, so the missed errors of any edit suite form its joint centralizer.