Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Certainly Uncertain: A Benchmark and Metric for Multimodal Epistemic and Aleatoric Awareness

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 2407.01942 v1 pith:JXPXVU4Y submitted 2024-07-02 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CV

classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.CV
keywords uncertaintyaccuracyaleatoricanswerablebenchmarkepistemicmetricquestions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The ability to acknowledge the inevitable uncertainty in their knowledge and reasoning is a prerequisite for AI systems to be truly truthful and reliable. In this paper, we present a taxonomy of uncertainty specific to vision-language AI systems, distinguishing between epistemic uncertainty (arising from a lack of information) and aleatoric uncertainty (due to inherent unpredictability), and further explore finer categories within. Based on this taxonomy, we synthesize a benchmark dataset, CertainlyUncertain, featuring 178K visual question answering (VQA) samples as contrastive pairs. This is achieved by 1) inpainting images to make previously answerable questions into unanswerable ones; and 2) using image captions to prompt large language models for both answerable and unanswerable questions. Additionally, we introduce a new metric confidence-weighted accuracy, that is well correlated with both accuracy and calibration error, to address the shortcomings of existing metrics.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Reliable Annotations with Less Effort: Evaluating LLM-Human Collaboration in Search Clarifications

    cs.IR 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    LLMs alone annotate search clarifications unreliably; adding confidence-based selective human review cuts effort 24-45% in simulation, but the evaluation is partly built from the ground truth it predicts.

Pith tools