arXiv AI

Different Facets of Verbalised Overconfidence: an Interpretability Study

The study examines how the large language model Qwen3-4B exhibits overconfidence across three expressions of uncertainty—verbal epistemic markers, abstention, and numeric confidence scores—using controlled reasoning scenarios that vary logical necessity and possibility. Findings confirm a pronounced overconfidence tendency, especially when numeric scores are requested, and reveal that certainty is generated by a broad coalition of shared features while uncertainty relies on a sparse set of dedicated features. By intervening on these uncertainty features, the researchers demonstrate causal evidence of the imbalance driving overconfidence and show that this intervention can mitigate overconfident errors across different settings, languages, and an out‑of‑distribution modality task.

arXiv AI
3d ago

Measuring Mechanistic Uncertainty in Large Language Models via Causal Robustness

The paper introduces mechanistic uncertainty, a measure of how stable a large language model’s internal mechanisms are when producing a response. It defines the causal robustness margin as the smallest internal intervention needed to change the output, and implements this using Jacobian Lens steering vectors. Experiments on three open‑source models and five QA datasets show that incorrect or uncertain answers have smaller margins, while correctly learned facts exhibit larger margins after training, indicating that causal robustness complements traditional output‑based uncertainty methods.

By Aneesh Komanduri, Majid Afshar, Timothy A. Miller, Yanjun Gao
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 3

"very likely" Means "uncertain"? How LLMs Diverge from Humans in Linguistic Uncertainty Quantification

The paper examines how large language models (LLMs) express uncertainty compared to humans, noting that humans use verbal markers like "possible" or "likely" to convey metacognitive awareness. By curating a corpus of human uncertainty markers and benchmarking LLMs against it, the authors find that LLMs encode these markers with numerical levels that differ substantially from human usage. They introduce METHODNAME, an optimization-based algorithm that learns an optimal uncertainty profile over verbal markers directly from LLM outputs, enabling a direct comparison of confidence semantics and revealing systematic disparities in verbal expressions.

By Jinhao Duan, Zicheng Liu, Zijie Liu, Kaidi Xu, Tianlong Chen
arXiv AI
Sep 7

From Answers to Interpretations: Rethinking Ambiguity-Induced Aleatoric Uncertainty Estimation in LLMs

The paper challenges the common practice of estimating aleatoric uncertainty in large language models (LLMs) by generating multiple clarified inputs and comparing the resulting answers. It argues that answers are unnecessary, costly, and can introduce epistemic leakage, proposing instead a clarification-only method that directly assesses ambiguity from the space of plausible interpretations. Experiments on three benchmarks show the new approach improves AUROC, reduces computational cost, and yields uncertainty estimates less correlated with epistemic uncertainty.

By Omer Nahum, Niv Nayman, Jonathan Fhima, Alon Zolfi, Jeremy Levy, Shai Mazor, Paolo Favaro