LLM uncertainty quantification should be judged by whether it improves real human decisions, not by calibration scores on trivia benchmarks.
Confidence Under the Hood: An Investigation into the Confidence-Probability Alignment in Large Language Models
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
As the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) becomes more widespread, understanding their self-evaluation of confidence in generated responses becomes increasingly important as it is integral to the reliability of the output of these models. We introduce the concept of Confidence-Probability Alignment, that connects an LLM's internal confidence, quantified by token probabilities, to the confidence conveyed in the model's response when explicitly asked about its certainty. Using various datasets and prompting techniques that encourage model introspection, we probe the alignment between models' internal and expressed confidence. These techniques encompass using structured evaluation scales to rate confidence, including answer options when prompting, and eliciting the model's confidence level for outputs it does not recognize as its own. Notably, among the models analyzed, OpenAI's GPT-4 showed the strongest confidence-probability alignment, with an average Spearman's $\hat{\rho}$ of 0.42, across a wide range of tasks. Our work contributes to the ongoing efforts to facilitate risk assessment in the application of LLMs and to further our understanding of model trustworthiness.
fields
cs.CL 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
From Calibration to Collaboration: LLM Uncertainty Quantification Should Be More Human-Centered
LLM uncertainty quantification should be judged by whether it improves real human decisions, not by calibration scores on trivia benchmarks.