Understanding and quantifying uncertainty in large language model (LLM) outputs is critical for reliable deployment. However, traditional evaluation approaches provide limited insight into model confidence at individual token positions during generation. To address this issue, we introduce LogitScope, a lightweight framework for analyzing LLM uncertainty through token-level information metrics computed from probability distributions. By measuring metrics such as entropy and varentropy at each generation step, LogitScope reveals patterns in model confidence, identifies potential hallucinations, and exposes decision points where models exhibit high uncertainty, all without requiring labeled data or semantic interpretation. We demonstrate LogitScope's utility across diverse applications including uncertainty quantification, model behavior analysis, and production monitoring. The framework is model-agnostic, computationally efficient through lazy evaluation, and compatible with any HuggingFace model, enabling both researchers and practitioners to inspect LLM behavior during inference.
Figures & tables
Figure 1
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: The web interface displaying the entropy metric. Tokens are color-coded by magnitude, with brighter colors indicating higher uncertainty. The sidebar shows aggregate statistics for quick assessment of overall model confidence.
Figure 3: The web interface displaying the varentropy metric. Varentropy reveals multimodal distributions where the model considers multiple alternatives. High varentropy regions indicate decision points with competing continuations.
Figure 4: The web interface displaying the perplexity metric. Lower values indicate better predictive confidence. The interface enables identification of regions where the model exhibits uncertainty.
Figure 5: The web interface displaying the probability metric. Higher values indicate more confident token selections. The direct probability measure provides intuitive assessment of model certainty.
Understanding why a large language model (LLM) is uncertain about the response is important for their reliable deployment. Current approaches, which either provide a single uncertainty score or rely on the classical aleatoric-epistemic dichotomy, fail to offer actionable insights for improving the generative model. Recent studies have also shown that such methods are not enough for understanding uncertainty in LLMs. In this work, we advocate for an uncertainty decomposition framework that dissects LLM uncertainty into three distinct semantic components: (i) input ambiguity, arising from ambiguous prompts; (ii) knowledge gaps, caused by insufficient parametric evidence; and (iii) decoding randomness, stemming from stochastic sampling. Through a series of experiments we demonstrate that the dominance of these components can shift across model size and task. Our framework provides a better understanding to audit LLM reliability and detect hallucinations, paving the way for targeted interventions and more trustworthy systems.
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance across diverse tasks, but they often generate responses that appear plausible while being factually incorrect. This problem is compounded by the lack of explicit uncertainty estimates, which makes it difficult for users to judge the reliability of model outputs. Existing uncertainty quantification methods typically rely on indirect signals, such as entropy across sampled generations. These signals can be difficult to interpret and do not fully leverage the model's ability to assess its own uncertainty. We propose a simple yet effective self-assessment method for uncertainty quantification in LLMs. Our approach groups sampled generations into semantically distinct clusters, converts them into answer options in a structured multiple-choice question, and uses the probability assigned by the LLM to each option as a confidence estimate. Experiments across multiple models and datasets show that our method consistently outperforms baseline approaches. Notably, it achieves competitive performance with as few as two additional samples, demonstrating both its effectiveness and efficiency.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse tasks. However, the truthfulness of their outputs is not guaranteed, and their tendency toward overconfidence further limits reliability. Uncertainty quantification offers a promising way to identify potentially unreliable outputs, but most existing methods rely on repeated sampling or auxiliary models, introducing substantial computational overhead. To address these limitations, we propose Semantic Token Clustering (STC), an efficient uncertainty quantification method that leverages the semantic information inherently encoded in LLMs. Specifically, we group tokens into semantically consistent clusters using embedding clustering and prefix matching, and quantify uncertainty based on the probability mass aggregated over the corresponding semantic cluster. Our approach requires only a single generation and does not depend on auxiliary models. Experimental results show that STC achieves performance comparable to state-of-the-art baselines while substantially reducing computational overhead.