REVIEW 5 cited by
Are Large Language Models More Honest in Their Probabilistic or Verbalized Confidence?
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) have been found to produce hallucinations when the question exceeds their internal knowledge boundaries. A reliable model should have a clear perception of its knowledge boundaries, providing correct answers within its scope and refusing to answer when it lacks knowledge. Existing research on LLMs' perception of their knowledge boundaries typically uses either the probability of the generated tokens or the verbalized confidence as the model's confidence in its response. However, these studies overlook the differences and connections between the two. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis and comparison of LLMs' probabilistic perception and verbalized perception of their factual knowledge boundaries. First, we investigate the pros and cons of these two perceptions. Then, we study how they change under questions of varying frequencies. Finally, we measure the correlation between LLMs' probabilistic confidence and verbalized confidence. Experimental results show that 1) LLMs' probabilistic perception is generally more accurate than verbalized perception but requires an in-domain validation set to adjust the confidence threshold. 2) Both perceptions perform better on less frequent questions. 3) It is challenging for LLMs to accurately express their internal confidence in natural language.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Beyond Semantic Equivalence: Logical Graphs for LLM Uncertainty Quantification
LGU models implication and incompatibility among LLM answers and reports consistent AUROC/AUARC gains over semantic entropy on QA benchmarks.
-
Influences on LLM Calibration: A Study of Response Agreement, Loss Functions, and Prompt Styles
Multi-LLM response agreement plus focal loss in an auxiliary BERT confidence model improves LLM calibration across 12 models and four prompt styles.
-
Towards Harmonized Uncertainty Estimation for Large Language Models
CUE combines a supervised correctness classifier with existing LLM uncertainty scores to improve indication, balance, and calibration, reporting AUROC and ECE gains across models and datasets.
-
A Survey on Uncertainty Quantification of Large Language Models: Taxonomy, Open Research Challenges, and Future Directions
A review that organizes LLM uncertainty quantification into token-level, self-verbalized, semantic-similarity, and mechanistic interpretability categories.
-
Assessing GPT Model Uncertainty in Mathematical OCR Tasks via Entropy Analysis
The paper reports that GPT-4o's token-level uncertainty, computed as the negative log-likelihood of its output, rises monotonically as image resolution falls from 300 to 72 dpi on a single test page.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.