Verbalized confidence from four zero-shot LLM recommenders is systematically under-confident and cannot separate correct items from catalog hallucinations, so confidence-gated abstention barely reduces hallucination.
Uncertainty Quantification and Decomposition for LLM-based Recommendation
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Despite the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) for recommendation, we demonstrate that LLMs often exhibit uncertainty in their recommendations. To ensure the trustworthy use of LLMs in generating recommendations, we emphasize the importance of assessing the reliability of recommendations generated by LLMs. We start by introducing a novel framework for estimating the predictive uncertainty to quantitatively measure the reliability of LLM-based recommendations. We further propose to decompose the predictive uncertainty into recommendation uncertainty and prompt uncertainty, enabling in-depth analyses of the primary source of uncertainty. Through extensive experiments, we (1) demonstrate predictive uncertainty effectively indicates the reliability of LLM-based recommendations, (2) investigate the origins of uncertainty with decomposed uncertainty measures, and (3) propose uncertainty-aware prompting for a lower predictive uncertainty and enhanced recommendation. Our source code and model weights are available at https://github.com/WonbinKweon/UNC_LLM_REC_WWW2025
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.IR 1years
2026 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Do LLM Recommenders Know When They're Hallucinating? Auditing Confidence Calibration in Catalog Faithfulness
Verbalized confidence from four zero-shot LLM recommenders is systematically under-confident and cannot separate correct items from catalog hallucinations, so confidence-gated abstention barely reduces hallucination.