The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
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.
The paper argues that verbalized confidence—once viewed as overconfident and coarse—has become the preferred soft‑scoring method for LLM‑as‑a‑Judge on top‑tier proprietary models released after 2025. Experiments on SummEval, AggreFact, and HelpSteer2 across up to 18 LLMs show that log‑probabilities are no longer the best signal, and that adding an overconfidence advisory and self‑debate further improves calibration and robustness. The authors note that these enhancements incur little accuracy loss on post‑2025 models but do affect pre‑2025 ones, highlighting a compatibility shift in how confidence should be measured.
arXiv:2607. 16197v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As artificial intelligence systems are deployed in open-ended, high-stakes settings, a critical dimension remains unmeasured: how perceived risk is translated into action.
arXiv:2606. 07951v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Humans increasingly turn to Language Models (LMs) in ways that shape beliefs and drive decisions, including discussing, rewriting, and summarizing information from scientific articles, news, and medical reports.
arXiv:2508. 08992v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Real-world decision-making often involves uncertainty expressed in linguistic rather than numerical terms, and Prospect Theory (PT) provides a classic framework for modeling human behavior under such uncertainty.
The paper introduces the "Prompt Lottery" phenomenon, where paraphrastic rephrasings of judge prompts in LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaJ) lead to inconsistent judgments and can even reverse model rankings. A large-scale study across various tasks, judge families, and model backbones demonstrates that these prompt variations significantly alter evaluation outcomes. A user study shows that LLMaJ judges are 6–9 times more sensitive to prompt rephrasings than humans, and that aggregating multiple prompts improves robustness by focusing on consistent judgments.