The paper investigates whether language models’ self-reported confidence is meaningful without additional training. By evaluating three training‑free signals—direct verbalization, post‑hoc probability estimates, and agreement across multiple generations—on 100 TriviaQA questions, the authors find that direct verbalization alone achieves high AUROC scores (0.956 and 0.937) for correctness prediction, while agreement-based methods perform noticeably worse. Re‑eliciting confidence for the same answers shows modest score shifts and occasional decision flips, and an audit of biography claims reveals only a small confidence gap between supported and contradicted statements.
By Lukas Meyer, Sofia Rossi, Wei Chen, Thomas Laurent, Yiming Li
arXiv:2606. 03846v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance across diverse tasks, but they often generate responses that appear plausible while being factually incorrect.
By Qi Cao, Takeshi Kojima, Andrew Gambardella, Helinyi Peng, Yutaka Matsuo, Yusuke Iwasawa
arXiv:2604.08974v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Uncertainty quantification techniques measure confidence in language model outputs to support critical applications like hallucination detection an...
By Lorenzo Jaime Yu Flores, Cesare Spinoso di-Piano, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung
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...
By Hefan Zhang, Bingquan Zhang, Ming Cheng, Saeed Hassanpour, Weicheng Ma, Soroush Vosoughi
The paper introduces a new evaluation framework for confidence estimation in large language models, focusing on three properties: robustness to prompt changes, stability across semantically equivalent answers, and sensitivity to semantically different answers. It demonstrates that existing confidence estimation methods perform well on robustness and stability but often fail to detect differences in answer meaning, revealing gaps in current evaluation practices. The framework aims to guide the selection of confidence estimators for practical applications.
By Yuxi Xia, Dennis Ulmer, Terra Blevins, Yihong Liu, Hinrich Sch\"utze, Benjamin Roth
arXiv:2606. 02093v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The task of Error Prediction, namely predicting whether a model output is correct, is commonly tackled with Uncertainty Quantification (UQ).
By Ieva Raminta Stali\=unait\.e, James Bishop, Andreas Vlachos
arXiv:2608. 13591v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: High-confidence errors in large language models are often treated as evidence of fragile internal inference.
By Akira Okutomi
arXiv:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.
By Matthew ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang, Sanyam Kapoor
arXiv:2608. 05064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings, where the key deployment question is not only what a model answers but when it should defer to a human.
By Jianru Shen
arXiv:2607. 07626v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reliable confidence estimation is essential for deploying large language models (LLMs) in confidence-aware systems, where downstream decisions such as retrieval, tool use, and adaptive computation depend on accurately estimating answer reliability.
By Sahil Kale
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.
By Krish Matta, Atharv Naphade, Andy Zou
The paper introduces a prompt-response concept model that links the amount of task-relevant information in a prompt to the uncertainty of responses generated by large language models (LLMs). It identifies four sources of response uncertainty—prompt underspecification, model quality, task variability, and semantic redundancy—and demonstrates that uncertainty decreases as prompt informativeness or model quality increases, analogous to epistemic uncertainty in probabilistic models. Experiments on real-world datasets confirm the theoretical predictions and validate the model.
By Ze Yu Zhang, Arun Verma, Finale Doshi-Velez, Bryan Kian Hsiang Low