Recent work has shown that the hidden states of large language models contain signals useful for uncertainty estimation, motivating a growing interest in efficient probe-based approaches. Yet it remains unclear how robust existing methods are, with prior work reporting conflicting conclusions under substantially different evaluation settings. We address this by introducing ProbeDrift, a systematic evaluation framework for supervised uncertainty probes covering a wide range of OOD settings across models, tasks, and distributional shifts. Using ProbeDrift, we train over 2,000 probes to disentangle the effect of key design choices, showing poor robustness of current methods beyond near-OOD settings. We find that robustness is driven by design decisions that have a largely invisible effect in-distribution, including the choice of feature type, aggregation strategy, and training signal. We argue that robust uncertainty estimation requires robust evaluation. To support this, we release ProbeDrift as a lightweight Python library that contains the train and test splits underpinning our extensive evaluation. We also show how insights from our evaluation can directly lead to more robust methods through a simple Hybrid Back-Off (HBO) strategy.
Probe-based uncertainty estimation (UE) has emerged as a prominent approach to detect hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) by learning uncertainty from internal model signals. Yet, recent methods vary simultaneously across feature design, training data construction, and evaluation setting, obscuring what actually drives performance. To address this issue, we propose a factorised study of probe-based UE under matched conditions. Our results show that raw hidden states and attention features are difficult to outperform in-domain. However, under distribution shift, structured and compressed features are more robust, suggesting that in-domain performance alone is insufficient to measure progress. Furthermore, prompting and label construction significantly affect probe behaviour. Building on these best-practice findings, we train benchmark-based pretrained probes that transfer reasonably well to open-ended factual generation, providing a stable off-the-shelf baseline. Our work encourages more deployment-oriented evaluation of probe-based uncertainty estimators. The code repository is available at https://github.com/ponhvoan/ProbeUE.
The maximum softmax probability (MSP) represents a default approach when evaluating uncertainty quantification for language model generation with structured output. Although cheap, it is often miscalibrated. Methods that probe the model's internal activations feed raw hidden states into opaque classifiers, reading activations as static snapshots and leaving implicit the layer-wise trajectory by which a representation is formed. Yet, similar endpoints can arise from very different paths, and how evidence accumulates, reinforces, or reverses across depth might reveal uncertainty that final probabilities obscure. We extract eleven scale-invariant geometric features, tracing the cumulative path of per-layer MLP updates, and feed them to a sparse linear probe. The probe outperforms MSP under selective abstention, with gains scaling with baseline miscalibration up to 21 AURC points. Because every feature has a closed-form geometric meaning, the probe's coefficients trace how and where along depth errors take shape -- which layers commit prematurely, which contradict the running state, where trajectories drift away from their endpoint.
Although large language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities across a wide range of tasks, their outputs often remain unreliable and may contain hallucinations, making uncertainty estimation (UE) essential for building trustworthy LLMs. In practice, many mainstream LLMs are only accessible through restricted APIs, where internal signals such as logits and hidden states are unavailable, making black-box UE especially important. However, existing work on black-box UE for LLMs remains fragmented in methodology and lacks a unified empirical comparison. To address this gap, we present a systematic review of black-box UE methods and organize them into five categories: verbalization-based, sampling-based, explanation-based, multi-agent, and hybrid methods. We further build a unified evaluation framework and benchmark 24 representative methods across 4 models and 4 dataset settings. Our results show that no single method consistently dominates across all settings. Nevertheless, methods that reason over and compare candidates in the answer space are generally effective, and hybrid methods that combine multiple uncertainty signals perform well under most conditions. By releasing the benchmark data and a unified evaluation framework, we aim to facilitate reproducible comparisons and support future research, while our empirical findings provide practical guidance for developing future black-box UE methods for LLMs.