Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Large Language Model Confidence Estimation via Black-Box Access

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 2406.04370 v4 pith:ZDN444QN submitted 2024-06-01 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords confidencemodelestimatingfeaturesresponsesaccessbenchmarkblack-box
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Estimating uncertainty or confidence in the responses of a model can be significant in evaluating trust not only in the responses, but also in the model as a whole. In this paper, we explore the problem of estimating confidence for responses of large language models (LLMs) with simply black-box or query access to them. We propose a simple and extensible framework where, we engineer novel features and train a (interpretable) model (viz. logistic regression) on these features to estimate the confidence. We empirically demonstrate that our simple framework is effective in estimating confidence of Flan-ul2, Llama-13b, Mistral-7b and GPT-4 on four benchmark Q\&A tasks as well as of Pegasus-large and BART-large on two benchmark summarization tasks with it surpassing baselines by even over $10\%$ (on AUROC) in some cases. Additionally, our interpretable approach provides insight into features that are predictive of confidence, leading to the interesting and useful discovery that our confidence models built for one LLM generalize zero-shot across others on a given dataset.

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