Fine-Grained Uncertainty Quantification for Long-Form Language Model Outputs: A Comparative Study

Despite the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), uncertainty quantification in LLM generation is a persistent challenge. Although recent approaches have achieved strong performance by restricting LLMs to produce short or constrained answer sets, many real-world applications require long-form and free-form text generation. A key difficulty in this setting is that LLMs often produce responses that are semantically coherent yet factually inaccurate, while the underlying semantics are multifaceted and the linguistic structure is complex. To tackle this challenge, this paper introduces Interrogative Uncertainty Quantification (IUQ), a novel framework that leverages inter-sample consistency and intra-sample faithfulness to quantify the uncertainty in long-form LLM outputs. By utilizing an interrogate-then-respond paradigm, our method provides reliable measures of claim-level uncertainty and the model's faithfulness. Experimental results across diverse model families and model sizes demonstrate the superior performance of IUQ over two widely used long-form generation datasets. The code is available at https://github.com/louisfanhz/IUQ.

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is widely regarded as the primary safeguard for deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes domains. However, we argue that the field suffers from a category error: mainstream UQ methods for LLMs are just unsupervised clustering algorithms. We demonstrate that most current approaches inherently quantify the internal consistency of the model's generations rather than their external correctness. Consequently, current methods are fundamentally blind to factual reality and fail to detect ``confident hallucinations,'' where models exhibit high confidence in stable but incorrect answers. Therefore, the current UQ methods may create a deceptive sense of safety when deploying the models with uncertainty. In detail, we identify three critical pathologies resulting from this dependence on internal state: a hyperparameter sensitivity crisis that renders deployment unsafe, an internal evaluation cycle that conflates stability with truth, and a fundamental lack of ground truth that forces reliance on unstable proxy metrics to evaluate uncertainty. To resolve this impasse, we advocate for a paradigm shift to UQ and outline a roadmap for the research community to adopt better evaluation metrics and settings, implement mechanism changes for native uncertainty, and anchor verification in objective truth, ensuring that model confidence serves as a reliable proxy for reality.

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods are widely used for hallucination detection in large language models (LLMs) in closed-book settings where ground-truth evidence is unavailable at inference time. Prior work has proposed combining UQ signals via learned ensembles, but empirical investigations into the robustness of these ensembles are limited. We study a supervised ensembling framework that trains a classifier over heterogeneous UQ-based scorer outputs on a small, domain-specific dataset of labeled LLM responses, then applies it to out-of-sample hallucination classification without retrieval, tools, or reference documents. Across four LLMs, nine datasets, and three generation regimes (short-form QA, long-form generation, and code generation), we provide a systematic robustness analysis along three axes: sample efficiency, in-domain dataset transfer, and generation regime dependence. We find that supervised ensembles outperform the best individual scorer in 30 of 32 settings, with gains realized from as few as 100 labeled instances. Ensembles retain most of their advantage in cases of in-domain transfer under distribution shift, outperforming the best non-ensemble scorer in 23 of 28 transfer settings. Sampling-based black-box ensembles are nearly as effective as full ensembles, while single-generation white-box ensembles offer limited benefit.