A Systematic Evaluation of Black-Box Uncertainty Estimation Methods for Large Language Models

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled sophisticated reasoning and content generation, yet their inherent stochasticity poses significant challenges for ensuring predictive credibility. While traditional uncertainty taxonomy paradigms, such as the dichotomy of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, provide conceptual foundations, they often fail to capture the multi-component and multi-stage nature of LLM generation and struggle to evaluate the effectiveness of various Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods. In this paper, we propose a granular uncertainty taxonomy that systematically attributes LLM uncertainty into input-level, parameter-level, token-level, and decoding-process sources. Correspondingly, we categorize existing UQ methods into Bayesian, ensemble, consensus-based, and single-pass approaches. Furthermore, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework covering diverse generation settings and metrics. We empirically evaluate 21 typical UQ methods across three prominent LLM families, including Qwen3, Llama 3.2, and DeepSeek-V3, on benchmarks such as TriviaQA, GSM8K, and HumanEval. Our experimental results demonstrate that (i) the effectiveness of UQ methods is sensitive to task types and generation settings; (ii) consensus-based methods, typed Deg and EigV, consistently outperform other UQ approaches; and (iii) larger model scales correlate with lower uncertainty estimates, suggesting an empirical scaling law for LLM uncertainty. This work bridges the gap between theoretical origins and practical deployment, providing a versatile diagnostic tool for systematically quantifying uncertainty in LLM applications.

Large language models (LLMs) have progressed rapidly in complex reasoning and question answering, yet LLM hallucination remains a central bottleneck that hinders practical deployment, especially for commercial black-box LLMs accessible only via APIs. Existing uncertainty quantification methods typically depend on computationally expensive multiple sampling or internal parameters, which prevents real-time estimation and fails to capture information implicit in the black-box reasoning process. To address this issue, we propose Distribution-Aligned Adversarial Distillation (DisAAD), which introduces a generation-discrimination architecture to guide a lightweight proxy model to learn the high-quality regions of the output distribution of the black-box LLM, thus effectively endowing it with the ability to know whether the black-box LLM knows or not. Subsequently, we use the proxy model to reproduce the specific responses of the black-box LLM and estimate the corresponding uncertainty based on evidence learning. Extensive experiments have verified the effectiveness and promise of our proposed method, indicating that a proxy model even one that only accounts for 1% of the target LLM's size can achieve reliable uncertainty quantification.

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.