arXiv AI
ProbabilityBench: Model Evaluation and Calibration with Exact Ground-Truth Uncertainty
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 17
Label-Confidence-Aware Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation
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.
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 22
S-EDL: Eliciting Self-Evidence from Sequence Likelihoods for Semantic Calibration of LLMs
S-EDL is a new evidential method that calibrates large language models for open‑ended generation by using the model’s own sequence likelihoods to build a differentiable Dirichlet prior over prompt‑specific semantic classes. This approach optimizes an evidential loss that provides a calibration‑aware training signal without relying on fixed multiple‑choice options. Experiments on four open‑ended benchmarks and three models show that S-EDL reduces semantic calibration error and improves accuracy, offering a framework for trustworthy LLM deployment in complex applications.
arXiv AI
Oct 9
TypedBench: A Benchmark for Calibration, Framing Sensitivity, and Cost in System One Decision Models
TypedBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate system‑one decision models that output calibrated probabilities for typed answers—categorical, ordinal, or binary—using a non‑generative interface. The benchmark assesses models on policy adherence, wording robustness, probability quality (via selective prediction, ordinal proper scoring rules, and calibration error), and the cost of decisions under asymmetric cost matrices, using seven policy‑labelled generators and nine evaluation suites. Experiments on a hosted model, an open encoder, and a range of open decoders (0.8B–9B parameters) reveal that the hosted model is wording‑sensitive and underconfident, while decoders are slow and less accurate on policy questions, highlighting the need for joint evaluation across multiple dimensions.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 18
Judge, Retrieve, or Abstain: Uncertainty-Guarded LLM Judging with Provable Risk Guarantees
The paper introduces a risk‑controlled framework for using large language models (LLMs) as judges in tasks without reference answers. By calibrating uncertainty thresholds on a held‑out set, the method ensures that the false discovery rate of accepted verdicts stays below a user‑specified level α with high probability, using finite‑sample Clopper–Pearson intervals. When the parametric judge lacks confidence, the instance is routed to a retrieval‑augmented mode with a second calibrated threshold, preserving the error guarantee while achieving higher coverage than single‑mode baselines.
arXiv AI
Jun 3
When Should LLMs Be Less Specific? Selective Abstraction for Reliable Long-Form Text Generation
arXiv:2602. 11908v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLMs are widely used, yet they remain prone to factual errors that erode user trust and limit adoption in high-risk settings.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 22
The Origins of Stochasticity: Comprehensive Investigations on Uncertainty Quantification for Large Language Models
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.