REVIEW 3 cited by
Confidence Calibration and Rationalization for LLMs via Multi-Agent Deliberation
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Uncertainty estimation is a significant issue for current large language models (LLMs) that are generally poorly calibrated and over-confident, especially with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Unlike humans, whose decisions and confidences not only stem from intrinsic beliefs but can also be adjusted through daily observations, existing calibration methods for LLMs focus on estimating or eliciting individual confidence without taking full advantage of the "Collective Wisdom": the interaction among multiple LLMs that can collectively improve both accuracy and calibration. In this work, we propose Collaborative Calibration, a post-hoc training-free calibration strategy that leverages the collaborative and expressive capabilities of multiple tool-augmented LLM agents in a simulated group deliberation process. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Collaborative Calibration on generative QA tasks across various domains, showing its potential in harnessing the rationalization of collectively calibrated confidence assessments and improving the reliability of model predictions.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Group Perspective Matters: Regulating Debate Relationships Can Mitigate Blind Conformity in Multi-Agent Debate
DEAR trains two RL policies, peer selection and generation-behavior control, to regulate how LLM debaters reference each other, improving benchmark accuracy while cutting token use.
-
BELLE: A Bi-Level Multi-Agent Reasoning Framework for Multi-Hop Question Answering
A question-type-aware, bi-level multi-agent debate that selects and combines existing QA operators outperforms fixed single-method baselines on four multi-hop benchmarks.
-
Overconfidence in LLM-as-a-Judge: Diagnosis and Confidence-Driven Solution
LLM-as-a-Judge systems report confidence that overstates their accuracy, and the paper's TH-Score plus LLM-as-a-Fuser improves calibration.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.