Unveiling Divergent Inductive Biases of LLMs on Temporal DataSindhu Kishore, Hangfeng He
Unraveling the intricate details of events in natural language necessitates a subtle understanding of temporal dynamics. Despite the adeptness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in discerning patterns and relationships from data, their inherent comprehension of temporal dynamics remains a formidable challenge. This research meticulously explores these intrinsic challenges within LLMs, with a specific emphasis on evaluating the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models in the analysis of temporal data. Employing two distinct prompt types, namely Question Answering (QA) format and Textual Entailment (TE) format, our analysis probes into both implicit and explicit events. The findings underscore noteworthy trends, revealing disparities in the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Notably, biases toward specific temporal relationships come to light, with GPT-3.5 demonstrating a preference for "AFTER'' in the QA format for both implicit and explicit events, while GPT-4 leans towards "BEFORE''. Furthermore, a consistent pattern surfaces wherein GPT-3.5 tends towards "TRUE'', and GPT-4 exhibits a preference for "FALSE'' in the TE format for both implicit and explicit events. This persistent discrepancy between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in handling temporal data highlights the intricate nature of inductive bias in LLMs, suggesting that the evolution of these models may not merely mitigate bias but may introduce new layers of complexity.
19.9CLFeb 12, 2025
Mitigating Hallucinations in Multimodal Spatial Relations through Constraint-Aware PromptingJiarui Wu, Zhuo Liu, Hangfeng He
Spatial relation hallucinations pose a persistent challenge in large vision-language models (LVLMs), leading to generate incorrect predictions about object positions and spatial configurations within an image. To address this issue, we propose a constraint-aware prompting framework designed to reduce spatial relation hallucinations. Specifically, we introduce two types of constraints: (1) bidirectional constraint, which ensures consistency in pairwise object relations, and (2) transitivity constraint, which enforces relational dependence across multiple objects. By incorporating these constraints, LVLMs can produce more spatially coherent and consistent outputs. We evaluate our method on three widely-used spatial relation datasets, demonstrating performance improvements over existing approaches. Additionally, a systematic analysis of various bidirectional relation analysis choices and transitivity reference selections highlights greater possibilities of our methods in incorporating constraints to mitigate spatial relation hallucinations.
4.9CLJun 20, 2025
The Role of Model Confidence on Bias Effects in Measured Uncertainties for Vision-Language ModelsXinyi Liu, Weiguang Wang, Hangfeng He
With the growing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) for open-ended tasks, accurately assessing epistemic uncertainty, which reflects a model's lack of knowledge, has become crucial to ensuring reliable outcomes. However, quantifying epistemic uncertainty in such tasks is challenging due to the presence of aleatoric uncertainty, which arises from multiple valid answers. While bias can introduce noise into epistemic uncertainty estimation, it may also reduce noise from aleatoric uncertainty. To investigate this trade-off, we conduct experiments on Visual Question Answering (VQA) tasks and find that mitigating prompt-introduced bias improves uncertainty quantification in GPT-4o. Building on prior work showing that LLMs tend to copy input information when model confidence is low, we further analyze how these prompt biases affect measured epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty across varying bias-free confidence levels with GPT-4o and Qwen2-VL. We find that all considered biases have greater effects in both uncertainties when bias-free model confidence is lower. Moreover, lower bias-free model confidence is associated with greater bias-induced underestimation of epistemic uncertainty, resulting in overconfident estimates, whereas it has no significant effect on the direction of bias effect in aleatoric uncertainty estimation. These distinct effects deepen our understanding of bias mitigation for uncertainty quantification and potentially inform the development of more advanced techniques.