Why Don't You Know? Evaluating the Impact of Uncertainty Sources on Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs

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) is essential for the safe deployment of large language models (LLMs). Existing methods, from verbalized confidence to ones requiring multiple generations, are often zero-shot and produce scores quantifying uncertainty without the need for labelled data. Nonetheless, in practice one must always evaluate their performance on a dataset of interest before deployment. In this work we show that, by leveraging this dataset, we consistently outperform these existing scores. Specifically, we build simple classifiers that predict LLM response correctness by using these scores and the correctness of similar queries as features. Our method produces minimal computational overhead, making it a cheap and straightforward enhancement for UQ in LLMs for real-world applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities in generative tasks but pose potential risks due to their tendency to generate hallucinatory responses. Therefore, Uncertainty Quantification (UQ), which aims to distinguish the validity of answers, is crucial for ensuring the safety and robustness of AI systems. However, existing methods primarily rely on measuring the entropy of multiple stochastic samples to represent uncertainty, often overlooking the specific uncertainty information associated with the candidate answer under evaluation. This oversight can lead to biased classification outcomes. In this paper, we investigate the discrepancy between global entropy from multiple samples and local confidence of candidate answer, and propose a Label-Confidence-Aware Uncertainty Quantification (LCA-UQ) method based on Pointwise Kullback-Leibler (PKL) divergence. Our method effectively bridges the gap between the consistency of sampled outputs and the calibration of the candidate answer, thereby enhancing the reliability and stability of uncertainty assessments. Empirical evaluations across a range of popular LLMs and NLP datasets reveal that label sources significantly impact classification. Furthermore, our approach effectively captures the nuances between sampling results and label sources, demonstrating superior performance in uncertainty estimation.