Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Function-Calling
Authors: Zihuiwen Ye, Lukas Aichberger, Michael Kirchhof, Sinead Williamson, Luca Zappella, Yarin Gal, Arno Blaas, Adam Golinski
Organizations: University of Oxford · Apple
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to autonomously solve real-world tasks. A key ingredient for this is the LLM Function-Calling paradigm, a widely used approach for equipping LLMs with tool-use capabilities. However, an LLM calling functions incorrectly can have severe implications, especially when their effects are irreversible, e.g., transferring money or deleting data. Hence, it is of paramount importance to consider the LLM's confidence that a function call solves the task correctly prior to executing it. Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods can be used to quantify this confidence and prevent potentially incorrect function calls. In this work, we present what is, to our knowledge, the first evaluation of UQ methods for LLM Function-Calling (FC). While multi-sample UQ methods, such as Semantic Entropy, show strong performance for natural language Q&A tasks, we find that in the FC setting, it offers no clear advantage over simple single-sample UQ methods. Additionally, we find that the particularities of FC outputs can be leveraged to improve the performance of existing UQ methods in this setting. Specifically, multi-sample UQ methods benefit from clustering FC outputs based on their abstract syntax tree parsing, while single-sample UQ methods can be improved by selecting only semantically meaningful tokens when calculating logit-based uncertainty scores.
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.
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.
LLMs' overconfidence, particularly when hallucinating, poses a significant challenge for the deployment of the models in safety-critical settings and makes a reliable estimation of uncertainty necessary. Existing approaches for uncertainty quantification typically prioritize lexical or probabilistic measures; however, these techniques often ignore the semantic variance of different responses with similar meaning. In this paper, we propose Adaptive Conformal Semantic Entropy (ACSE), a method for estimating prompt-level uncertainty by adaptively measuring semantic dispersion in LLMs outputs. Our uncertainty scoring function is based on clustering semantic entropy of multiple diverse responses to the same prompt. The function adaptively adjusts the uncertainty score based on semantic features of each cluster. To ensure statistical reliability of our score, we use conformal calibration to apply a decision rule to accept/abstain the prompts, providing a finite-sample, distribution-free guarantee such that the error rate among the accepted responses remains bounded by a user-specified tolerance. Our extensive experimental evaluations using different LLMs and datasets, demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms state-of-the-art uncertainty quantification baselines using discriminative performance, conformal guarantees, and probabilistic calibration indicators. As a highlight, for TriviaQA dataset, AUROC of our approach is 0.88 compared to 0.65 produced by the token entropy approach.