The study evaluates how large language models (LLMs) interpret verbal probability expressions by mapping words to numbers and testing consistency across 19 models. Results show that LLMs largely mirror human benchmarks—preserving word order, recovering key anchor points, and reflecting the high variance of the term "possible"—but they exhibit a systematic upward bias for negative expressions like "unlikely" and "improbable." Explanation elicitation reduces within‑model variance but increases divergence between models, while a bidirectional roundtrip test reveals that leading models maintain coherent internal representations.
Large language models increasingly produce and interpret verbal probability expressions, yet whether these expressions carry consistent meaning across models (or match human perceptions of uncertainty...
arXiv:2607. 03882v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly deployed as post-hoc explainers of AI-generated outputs, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably communicate probabilistic information in natural language.
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled sophisticated reasoning and content generation, yet their inherent stochasticity poses significant challenges for ensuring predictive credibility. While traditional uncertainty taxonomy paradigms, such as the dichotomy of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, provide conceptual foundations, they often fail to capture the multi-component and multi-stage nature of LLM generation and struggle to evaluate the effectiveness of various Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods.
arXiv:2608.28382v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Users often ask large language models (LLMs) to report how confident they are, but it is unclear whether such linguistic confidence tracks the model's...
arXiv:2607. 20454v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: All frontier large language models (LLMs) exhibit response drift -- producing outputs that deviate from expert-validated references -- yet the magnitude and structure of this drift remain uncharacterised by systematic human evaluation.
arXiv:2604. 02512v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly exhibit human-like patterns of pragmatic and social reasoning.
arXiv:2606. 19868v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities across a wide range of tasks, their outputs often remain unreliable and may contain hallucinations, making uncertainty estimation (UE) essential for building trustworthy LLMs.
arXiv:2603. 24967v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Understanding why a large language model (LLM) is uncertain about the response is important for their reliable deployment.
arXiv:2607. 19367v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Calibration is the primary criterion for evaluating LLM confidence, but it is insufficient: it admits trivially incoherent estimators, depends on the evaluation distribution, and does not test the extent to which the estimation can be interpreted as a consistent, underlying probability function.
arXiv:2604. 19139v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve through alignment techniques such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI, a growing and increasingly conspicuous phenomenon has emerged: the proliferation of verbal tics--repetitive, formulaic linguistic patterns that pervade model outputs.
arXiv:2607. 06327v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Uncertainty estimation (UE) enables LLM-powered systems to recognize when to abstain, yet existing research has predominantly focused on English.
arXiv:2507. 06722v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Understanding how large language models (LLMs) internally represent and process their predictions is central to detecting uncertainty and preventing hallucinations.