Reconsidering LLM Uncertainty Estimation Methods in the Wild
Fuente:
arXiv
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866913870189166592 |
|---|---|
| author | Bakman, Yavuz Yaldiz, Duygu Nur Kang, Sungmin Zhang, Tuo Buyukates, Baturalp Avestimehr, Salman Karimireddy, Sai Praneeth |
| author_facet | Bakman, Yavuz Yaldiz, Duygu Nur Kang, Sungmin Zhang, Tuo Buyukates, Baturalp Avestimehr, Salman Karimireddy, Sai Praneeth |
| contents | Large Language Model (LLM) Uncertainty Estimation (UE) methods have become a crucial tool for detecting hallucinations in recent years. While numerous UE methods have been proposed, most existing studies evaluate them in isolated short-form QA settings using threshold-independent metrics such as AUROC or PRR. However, real-world deployment of UE methods introduces several challenges. In this work, we systematically examine four key aspects of deploying UE methods in practical settings. Specifically, we assess (1) the sensitivity of UE methods to decision threshold selection, (2) their robustness to query transformations such as typos, adversarial prompts, and prior chat history, (3) their applicability to long-form generation, and (4) strategies for handling multiple UE scores for a single query. Our evaluations on 19 UE methods reveal that most of them are highly sensitive to threshold selection when there is a distribution shift in the calibration dataset. While these methods generally exhibit robustness against previous chat history and typos, they are significantly vulnerable to adversarial prompts. Additionally, while existing UE methods can be adapted for long-form generation through various strategies, there remains considerable room for improvement. Lastly, ensembling multiple UE scores at test time provides a notable performance boost, which highlights its potential as a practical improvement strategy. Code is available at: https://github.com/duygunuryldz/uncertainty_in_the_wild. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2506_01114 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Reconsidering LLM Uncertainty Estimation Methods in the Wild Bakman, Yavuz Yaldiz, Duygu Nur Kang, Sungmin Zhang, Tuo Buyukates, Baturalp Avestimehr, Salman Karimireddy, Sai Praneeth Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence Large Language Model (LLM) Uncertainty Estimation (UE) methods have become a crucial tool for detecting hallucinations in recent years. While numerous UE methods have been proposed, most existing studies evaluate them in isolated short-form QA settings using threshold-independent metrics such as AUROC or PRR. However, real-world deployment of UE methods introduces several challenges. In this work, we systematically examine four key aspects of deploying UE methods in practical settings. Specifically, we assess (1) the sensitivity of UE methods to decision threshold selection, (2) their robustness to query transformations such as typos, adversarial prompts, and prior chat history, (3) their applicability to long-form generation, and (4) strategies for handling multiple UE scores for a single query. Our evaluations on 19 UE methods reveal that most of them are highly sensitive to threshold selection when there is a distribution shift in the calibration dataset. While these methods generally exhibit robustness against previous chat history and typos, they are significantly vulnerable to adversarial prompts. Additionally, while existing UE methods can be adapted for long-form generation through various strategies, there remains considerable room for improvement. Lastly, ensembling multiple UE scores at test time provides a notable performance boost, which highlights its potential as a practical improvement strategy. Code is available at: https://github.com/duygunuryldz/uncertainty_in_the_wild. |
| title | Reconsidering LLM Uncertainty Estimation Methods in the Wild |
| topic | Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01114 |