The paper introduces Functional Entropy, a new uncertainty quantification technique for assessing the functional correctness of code generated by large language models. It evaluates token‑probability and sampling‑based methods across three programming languages and five LLMs, finding that token‑probability approaches generalize well while NLI‑based sampling fails due to semantic clustering. Functional equivalence methods, which replace NLI with an LLM‑based functional assessment, achieve superior AUROC and calibration in most model‑benchmark combinations.
arXiv:2606. 09577v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as code generators, where silently wrong programs pose real safety and reliability risks.
arXiv:2608. 14659v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models for code generation often produce incorrect solutions without reliable indicators of failure.
The paper introduces Label-Confidence-Aware Uncertainty Quantification (LCA-UQ), a method that uses Pointwise Kullback-Leibler divergence to align global entropy from multiple stochastic samples with the local confidence of a candidate answer. By bridging this gap, LCA-UQ improves the reliability and stability of uncertainty assessments in natural language generation. Experiments on popular LLMs and NLP datasets show that label sources significantly influence classification and that LCA-UQ outperforms existing uncertainty estimation approaches.
The paper investigates hallucination detection in black‑box large language models by leveraging two accessible signals: semantic entropy, which captures disagreement among sampled response meanings, and token‑level uncertainty derived from log‑probabilities. It introduces a TopK aggregation technique, a hybrid CoCoA method combining uncertainty with semantic dissimilarity, and two supervised approaches—Gated and Stacked—that integrate token and semantic features. Across seven benchmarks and four language models, the supervised Stacked method performs best in many cases, while TopK and CoCoA remain competitive without labeled data, though all methods require careful threshold calibration.
arXiv:2603. 24929v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Understanding and quantifying uncertainty in large language model (LLM) outputs is critical for reliable deployment.
arXiv:2607. 10476v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a powerful tool for retrieving knowledge through seamless, human-like interactions.
arXiv:2606. 07528v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hallucination in large language models (LLMs), defined as the generation of factually incorrect or unsupported content, remains a critical barrier to reliable deployment.
arXiv:2607. 12273v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Code Large Language Models (LLMs) become central to modern software engineering, their inherent stochasticity poses significant real-world risks, where even minor errors can lead to severe functional, security, or safety consequences.
arXiv:2607. 01235v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Understanding how Large Language Models (LLMs) make token-level decisions during code generation remains a major challenge for both researchers and practitioners.
arXiv:2606. 03628v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in open-ended text generation, yet they remain prone to hallucinating incorrect or unsupported content, which undermines their reliability.
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.
As Code Large Language Models (LLMs) become central to modern software engineering, their inherent stochasticity poses significant real-world risks, where even minor errors can lead to severe functional, security, or safety consequences. Reliable automation, therefore, demands the ability to distinguish between confident, well-supported predictions and stochastic guessing.