Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Navigating the Grey Area: How Expressions of Uncertainty and Overconfidence Affect Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.13439 v2 pith:LC2IURWX submitted 2023-02-26 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords markerscertaintyepistemicuncertaintyexpressionslanguagemodelaffect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The increased deployment of LMs for real-world tasks involving knowledge and facts makes it important to understand model epistemology: what LMs think they know, and how their attitudes toward that knowledge are affected by language use in their inputs. Here, we study an aspect of model epistemology: how epistemic markers of certainty, uncertainty, or evidentiality like "I'm sure it's", "I think it's", or "Wikipedia says it's" affect models, and whether they contribute to model failures. We develop a typology of epistemic markers and inject 50 markers into prompts for question answering. We find that LMs are highly sensitive to epistemic markers in prompts, with accuracies varying more than 80%. Surprisingly, we find that expressions of high certainty result in a 7% decrease in accuracy as compared to low certainty expressions; similarly, factive verbs hurt performance, while evidentials benefit performance. Our analysis of a popular pretraining dataset shows that these markers of uncertainty are associated with answers on question-answering websites, while markers of certainty are associated with questions. These associations may suggest that the behavior of LMs is based on mimicking observed language use, rather than truly reflecting epistemic uncertainty.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tag Questions and the Generational Reversal of Sycophancy Across 45 Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Across 45 LLMs, the 'right?' tag effect flips from sycophantic to resistant over four years of releases, while the 'maybe?' tag raises agreement in every model — anti-sycophancy training is grammar-keyed and one-sided.

  2. Humans overrely on overconfident language models, across languages

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    LLMs produce overconfident-sounding answers in all five tested languages, and bilingual users show the highest overreliance risk in Japanese despite its frequent hedges.

  3. Shaking to Reveal: Perturbation-Based Detection of LLM Hallucinations

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SSP adds a learned, sample-specific noise prompt to an LLM input and scores hallucination by the cosine shift in intermediate representations, outperforming output-confidence baselines on QA benchmarks.

  4. Do Language Models Mirror Human Confidence? Exploring Psychological Insights to Address Overconfidence in LLMs

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM confidence is less sensitive to task difficulty than human confidence and bends to persona stereotypes, and separating confidence prompts from answer prompts (AFCE) improves calibration on hard tasks.

  5. Overconfidence in LLM-as-a-Judge: Diagnosis and Confidence-Driven Solution

    cs.AI 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLM-as-a-Judge systems report confidence that overstates their accuracy, and the paper's TH-Score plus LLM-as-a-Fuser improves calibration.

  6. Loki's Dance of Illusions: A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey of LLM hallucination research that formalizes hallucination types and argues, via incompleteness and undecidability arguments, that hallucinations cannot be fully eliminated.

Pith tools