Estimating the Black-box LLM Uncertainty with Distribution-Aligned Adversarial Distillation

Accurate uncertainty quantification remains a key challenge for standard LLMs, prompting the adoption of Bayesian and ensemble-based methods. However, such methods typically necessitate computationally expensive sampling, involving multiple forward passes to effectively estimate predictive uncertainty. In this paper, we introduce an approach enabling uncertainty estimation in LLMs without incurring the heavy inference latency typically associated with sampling methods. Specifically, we distill uncertainty-aware teachers - originally requiring multiple forward passes - into single-pass students, fine-tuned using LoRA. We compare two distinct distillation strategies: one in which the student employs traditional softmax-based outputs, and another in which the student leverages Dirichlet-distributed outputs to explicitly model epistemic uncertainty via evidential learning. Empirical evaluation on classification tasks demonstrate that such students can achieve comparable predictive and uncertainty quantification performance relative to their teachers, while requiring only a single forward pass.

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.

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.