REVIEW 1 cited by
Label-Confidence-Aware Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation
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
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) display formidable capabilities in generative tasks but also pose potential risks due to their tendency to generate hallucinatory responses. Uncertainty Quantification (UQ), the evaluation of model output reliability, is crucial for ensuring the safety and robustness of AI systems. Recent studies have concentrated on model uncertainty by analyzing the relationship between output entropy under various sampling conditions and the corresponding labels. However, these methods primarily focus on measuring model entropy with precision to capture response characteristics, often neglecting the uncertainties associated with greedy decoding results-the sources of model labels, which can lead to biased classification outcomes. In this paper, we explore the biases introduced by greedy decoding and propose a label-confidence-aware (LCA) uncertainty estimation based on Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence bridging between samples and label source, thus enhancing the reliability and stability of uncertainty assessments. Our empirical evaluations across a range of popular LLMs and NLP datasets reveal that different label sources can indeed affect classification, and that our approach can effectively capture differences in sampling results and label sources, demonstrating more effective uncertainty estimation.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Reconstructing Biological Pathways by Applying Selective Incremental Learning to (Very) Small Language Models
A small BERT model trained on only 117 of 517 curated regulatory relationships selected as confident errors reaches 93% balanced accuracy, outperforming a policy that also includes uncertain correct examples.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.