Tiejin Chen

Tiejin Chen, Xiaoou Liu, Longchao Da et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various tasks due to large training datasets and powerful transformer architecture. However, the reliability of responses from LLMs remains a question. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) of LLMs is crucial for ensuring their reliability, especially in areas such as healthcare, finance, and decision-making. Existing UQ methods primarily focus on semantic similarity, overlooking the deeper knowledge dimensions embedded in responses. We introduce a multi-dimensional UQ framework that integrates semantic and knowledge-aware similarity analysis. By generating multiple responses and leveraging auxiliary LLMs to extract implicit knowledge, we construct separate similarity matrices and apply tensor decomposition to derive a comprehensive uncertainty representation. This approach disentangles overlapping information from both semantic and knowledge dimensions, capturing both semantic variations and factual consistency, leading to more accurate UQ. Our empirical evaluations demonstrate that our method outperforms existing techniques in identifying uncertain responses, offering a more robust framework for enhancing LLM reliability in high-stakes applications.

Tiejin Chen, Wenwang Huang, Linsey Pang et al.

This paper delves into the critical area of deep learning robustness, challenging the conventional belief that classification robustness and explanation robustness in image classification systems are inherently correlated. Through a novel evaluation approach leveraging clustering for efficient assessment of explanation robustness, we demonstrate that enhancing explanation robustness does not necessarily flatten the input loss landscape with respect to explanation loss - contrary to flattened loss landscapes indicating better classification robustness. To deeply investigate this contradiction, a groundbreaking training method designed to adjust the loss landscape with respect to explanation loss is proposed. Through the new training method, we uncover that although such adjustments can impact the robustness of explanations, they do not have an influence on the robustness of classification. These findings not only challenge the prevailing assumption of a strong correlation between the two forms of robustness but also pave new pathways for understanding relationship between loss landscape and explanation loss.