Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Methods to Estimate Large Language Model Confidence

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2312.03733 v2 pith:W6XX3WIZ submitted 2023-11-28 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords confidencemodelagreementmethodsabilityaccuracyfrequencygpt4
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models have difficulty communicating uncertainty, which is a significant obstacle to applying LLMs to complex medical tasks. This study evaluates methods to measure LLM confidence when suggesting a diagnosis for challenging clinical vignettes. GPT4 was asked a series of challenging case questions using Chain of Thought and Self Consistency prompting. Multiple methods were investigated to assess model confidence and evaluated on their ability to predict the models observed accuracy. The methods evaluated were Intrinsic Confidence, SC Agreement Frequency and CoT Response Length. SC Agreement Frequency correlated with observed accuracy, yielding a higher Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve compared to Intrinsic Confidence and CoT Length analysis. SC agreement is the most useful proxy for model confidence, especially for medical diagnosis. Model Intrinsic Confidence and CoT Response Length exhibit a weaker ability to differentiate between correct and incorrect answers, preventing them from being reliable and interpretable markers for model confidence. We conclude GPT4 has a limited ability to assess its own diagnostic accuracy. SC Agreement Frequency is the most useful method to measure GPT4 confidence.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can You Trust LLM Judgments? Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LLM judges are often internally inconsistent across seed variations, with McDonald's omega reliability scores mostly below acceptable thresholds.

Pith tools