REVIEW 5 cited by
Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations
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
Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations
read the original abstract
In many high-risk machine learning applications it is essential for a model to indicate when it is uncertain about a prediction. While large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. Traditional methods for ML uncertainty quantification can be difficult to directly adapt to LLMs due to the computational cost of implementation and closed-source nature of many models. A variety of black-box methods have recently been proposed, but these often rely on heuristics such as self-verbalized confidence. We instead propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer. While utilizing explanations is not a new idea in and of itself, by interpreting each possible model+explanation pair as a test-time classifier we can calculate a posterior answer distribution over the most likely of these classifiers. We demonstrate how a specific instance of this framework using explanation entailment as our classifier likelihood improves confidence score metrics (in particular AURC and AUROC) over baselines across five different datasets. We believe these results indicate that our framework is both a well-principled and effective way of quantifying uncertainty in LLMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Can LLMs Use Linguistic Uncertainty Markers to Reliably Reflect Intrinsic Confidence?
LLMs struggle to associate epistemic markers with stable internal confidence levels across distributions, even under model-centric interpretations, while maintaining somewhat consistent marker rankings.
-
Not All Uncertainty Is Equal: How Uncertainty Granularity Shapes Human Verification in LLM-Assisted Decision Making
A between-subjects experiment (N=192) finds that token-level uncertainty increases agreement with LLM answers while relation-level uncertainty reduces external verification in medical decision tasks.
-
Reinforcement Learning with Metacognitive Feedback Elicits Faithful Uncertainty Expression in LLMs
RLMF uses quality of model self-judgments to refine RL rankings and select training data, achieving SOTA faithful calibration while preserving accuracy and outperforming standard RL by up to 63%.
-
Task Abstention for Large Language Models in Code Generation
A distribution-free abstention rule grounded in multiple hypothesis testing uses execution consistency to let code LLMs avoid hallucination-prone tasks with theoretical guarantees.
-
The Origins of Stochasticity: Comprehensive Investigations on Uncertainty Quantification for Large Language Models
The paper introduces a four-source uncertainty taxonomy for LLMs and finds that consensus-based UQ methods outperform others while larger models show lower uncertainty estimates.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.