Goto

Collaborating Authors

 infographicsvqa


The Confidence Paradox: Can LLM Know When It's Wrong

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Document Visual Question Answering (DocVQA) models often produce overconfident or ethically misaligned responses, especially under uncertainty. Existing models like LayoutLMv3, UDOP, and DONUT focus on accuracy but lack ethical calibration. We propose HonestVQA, a model-agnostic, self-supervised framework that aligns model confidence with correctness using weighted loss and contrastive learning. We introduce two new metrics Honesty Score (H-Score) and Ethical Confidence Index (ECI)-to evaluate ethical alignment. HonestVQA improves accuracy and F1 by up to 4.3% across SpDocVQA, InfographicsVQA, and SROIE datasets, while reducing overconfidence. It also generalizes well across domains, achieving 78.9% accuracy and 76.1% F1-score.


Notes on Applicability of GPT-4 to Document Understanding

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

We perform a missing, reproducible evaluation of all publicly available GPT-4 family models concerning the Document Understanding field, where it is frequently required to comprehend text spacial arrangement and visual clues in addition to textual semantics. Benchmark results indicate that though it is hard to achieve satisfactory results with text-only models, GPT-4 Vision Turbo performs well when one provides both text recognized by an external OCR engine and document images on the input. Evaluation is followed by analyses that suggest possible contamination of textual GPT-4 models and indicate the significant performance drop for lengthy documents.