Recently, large multi-modal models (LMMs) have emerged with the capacity to perform vision tasks such as captioning and visual question answering (VQA) with unprecedented accuracy. Applications such as helping the blind or visually impaired have a critical need for precise answers. It is specially important for models to be well calibrated and be able to quantify their uncertainty in order to selectively decide when to answer and when to abstain or ask for clarifications. We perform the first in-depth analysis of calibration methods and metrics for VQA with in-context learning LMMs. Studying VQA on two answerability benchmarks, we show that the likelihood score of visually grounded models is better calibrated than in their text-only counterparts for in-context learning, where sampling based methods are generally superior, but no clear winner arises. We propose Avg BLEU, a calibration score combining the benefits of both sampling and likelihood methods across modalities.

Warning: This paper contains explicit statements of offensive stereotypes which may be upsetting The study of bias, fairness and social impact in Natural Language Processing (NLP) lacks resources in languages other than English. Our objective is to support the evaluation of bias in language models in a multilingual setting. We use stereotypes across nine types of biases to build a corpus containing contrasting sentence pairs, one sentence that presents a stereotype concerning an underadvantaged group and another minimally changed sentence, concerning a matching advantaged group. We build on the French CrowS-Pairs corpus and guidelines to provide translations of the existing material into seven additional languages. In total, we produce 11,139 new sentence pairs that cover stereotypes dealing with nine types of biases in seven cultural contexts. We use the final resource for the evaluation of relevant monolingual and multilingual masked language models. We find that language models in all languages favor sentences that express stereotypes in most bias categories. The process of creating a resource that covers a wide range of language types and cultural settings highlights the difficulty of bias evaluation, in particular comparability across languages and contexts.