REVIEW 1 cited by
SPUQ: Perturbation-Based Uncertainty Quantification for Large Language Models
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
read the original abstract
In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly prevalent, offering remarkable text generation capabilities. However, a pressing challenge is their tendency to make confidently wrong predictions, highlighting the critical need for uncertainty quantification (UQ) in LLMs. While previous works have mainly focused on addressing aleatoric uncertainty, the full spectrum of uncertainties, including epistemic, remains inadequately explored. Motivated by this gap, we introduce a novel UQ method, sampling with perturbation for UQ (SPUQ), designed to tackle both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. The method entails generating a set of perturbations for LLM inputs, sampling outputs for each perturbation, and incorporating an aggregation module that generalizes the sampling uncertainty approach for text generation tasks. Through extensive experiments on various datasets, we investigated different perturbation and aggregation techniques. Our findings show a substantial improvement in model uncertainty calibration, with a reduction in Expected Calibration Error (ECE) by 50\% on average. Our findings suggest that our proposed UQ method offers promising steps toward enhancing the reliability and trustworthiness of LLMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Cleanse: Uncertainty Estimation Approach Using Clustering-based Semantic Consistency in LLMs
Cleanse detects hallucinated LLM answers by computing the share of hidden-embedding cosine similarity that falls inside semantic clusters, and it beats several baselines in AUROC across four models and two QA benchmarks.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.