Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Confidence Estimation for LLM-Based Dialogue State Tracking

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 2409.09629 v2 pith:QSASV377 submitted 2024-09-15 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords confidencemodelmethodscalibrationdialoguellmsscoresassess
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Estimation of a model's confidence on its outputs is critical for Conversational AI systems based on large language models (LLMs), especially for reducing hallucination and preventing over-reliance. In this work, we provide an exhaustive exploration of methods, including approaches proposed for open- and closed-weight LLMs, aimed at quantifying and leveraging model uncertainty to improve the reliability of LLM-generated responses, specifically focusing on dialogue state tracking (DST) in task-oriented dialogue systems (TODS). Regardless of the model type, well-calibrated confidence scores are essential to handle uncertainties, thereby improving model performance. We evaluate four methods for estimating confidence scores based on softmax, raw token scores, verbalized confidences, and a combination of these methods, using the area under the curve (AUC) metric to assess calibration, with higher AUC indicating better calibration. We also enhance these with a self-probing mechanism, proposed for closed models. Furthermore, we assess these methods using an open-weight model fine-tuned for the task of DST, achieving superior joint goal accuracy (JGA). Our findings also suggest that fine-tuning open-weight LLMs can result in enhanced AUC performance, indicating better confidence score calibration.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Reliable Annotations with Less Effort: Evaluating LLM-Human Collaboration in Search Clarifications

    cs.IR 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    LLMs alone annotate search clarifications unreliably; adding confidence-based selective human review cuts effort 24-45% in simulation, but the evaluation is partly built from the ground truth it predicts.

Pith tools