Organizations: School of Computing and Augmented Intelligence, Arizona State University · Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Abstract
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.
A key challenge in reliable LLM deployment is recognizing when uncertainty reflects irreducible variability in the task rather than limitations in the model's knowledge. In language tasks, a central source of such aleatoric uncertainty is input ambiguity or underspecification, where multiple interpretations remain plausible. Existing decomposition methods estimate aleatoric uncertainty by generating multiple clarifications of the input, querying the model for an answer under each clarification, and comparing the resulting answers. We argue that answers are not necessary for identifying ambiguity: they are often redundant, add avoidable cost, and can mislead through epistemic leakage. We support this claim theoretically, and propose a clarification-only approach that estimates this ambiguity-induced component directly from the space of plausible interpretations, without answers to the clarified inputs. Using ambiguity detection as an operational evaluation across three benchmarks, this direct approach improves AUROC (63.34 vs. 60.85), reduces computational cost by 4-26x in output tokens and 2.2-3.5x in API calls, and yields estimates with substantially lower correlation with epistemic uncertainty. Overall, our results suggest that ambiguity-induced aleatoric uncertainty is better estimated from the interpretation space than from the response space.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making across diverse domains. Ensuring the generation of safe and reliable responses is critical for the effective deployment of LLM-based applications, particularly in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and finance. Most of these applications typically use carefully crafted prompts to guide response generation; however, the relationship between prompts and the reliability of LLM-generated responses is not yet fully understood. To address this gap, we propose a novel prompt-response concept model that explains the relationship between the amount of task-relevant information (informativeness) provided in the prompt and the LLM-generated response uncertainty by identifying four sources of response uncertainty: prompt underspecification, model quality, task variability, and semantic redundancy. We prove that response uncertainty decreases as prompt informativeness or model quality increases, mirroring the behavior of epistemic uncertainty in probabilistic models. Our experimental results on real-world datasets further validate our proposed model and corroborate the theoretical results.
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.