ViLU: Apprentissage d'incertitude langage et visuel pour la prédiction d'erreur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) and failure prediction remain open challenges for Vision-Language Models (VLMs). We introduce ViLU, a new Vision-Language Uncertainty quantification framework that contextualizes uncertainty estimates by leveraging all task-relevant textual representations. \ours constructs an uncertainty-aware multi-modal representation by integrating the visual embedding, the predicted textual embedding, and an image-conditioned textual representation via cross-attention. Unlike traditional UQ methods based on loss prediction, \ours trains an uncertainty predictor as a binary classifier to distinguish correct from incorrect predictions using a weighted binary cross-entropy loss, making it loss-agnostic. In particular, our proposed approach is well-suited for post-hoc settings, where only vision and text embeddings are available without direct access to the model itself. Extensive experiments on diverse datasets show the significant gains of our method compared to state-of-the-art failure prediction methods. We apply our method to standard classification datasets, such as ImageNet-1k, as well as large-scale image-caption datasets like CC12M and LAION-400M. Ablation studies highlight the critical role of our architecture and training in achieving effective uncertainty quantification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".