CoMet: Context and Multiplicity Decomposition for Multimodal Uncertainty Estimation

Uncertainty estimation is important for deploying LLMs in high-stakes applications such as healthcare and finance, where hallucinations can appear fluent and plausible while being factually incorrect, making it difficult for users to judge whether an output should be trusted. Existing methods require one or more full autoregressive generations to estimate uncertainty, which introduces substantial inference cost and often delays uncertainty assessment. In this paper, we investigate whether effective uncertainty estimation can be achieved with partial generation or even input-only information. Specifically, we first develop a unified framework that formulates uncertainty estimation as an early estimation problem over the autoregressive generation process of LLMs. This framework organises existing and proposed estimators by the information they observe, ranging from multi-generation to input-only prediction, and clarifies the performance-cost trade-off underlying different uncertainty estimation methods. Building on this view, we study two largely underexplored low-cost settings: estimating uncertainty with part of the generation, and predicting uncertainty from the input prompt. We propose Logit Magnitude, which uses top-M logit evidence to estimate uncertainty from an early-stopped generation prefix, and MetaUE, which distils generation-based uncertainty into a lightweight input-only estimator trained with uncertainty scores. Extensive experiments on general and domain-specific benchmarks show that Logit Magnitude achieves strong performance, and partial generations of LLMs are often sufficient for effective uncertainty estimation. MetaUE further provides a competitive input-only approximation in several settings. These findings suggest that effective uncertainty estimation requires less generation than commonly assumed, enabling unreliable responses to be identified earlier.

Uncertainty estimation (UE) enables LLM-powered systems to recognize when to abstain, yet existing research has predominantly focused on English. We present the first large-scale evaluation of UE methods across 22 languages, spanning high-, mid-, and low-resource settings. Using two human-curated Q&A datasets, we compare open and closed box UE methods (nine in total) across different model sizes and architectures while eliciting long-form reasoning, avoiding LLM-as-a-judge and embedding-based scoring, which can introduce evaluation noise. We report three main actionable findings. First, we find that prompting models to reason in English while keeping questions in low-resource languages substantially improves UE performance, suggesting that comprehension of low-resource languages is largely intact, and that the reliability bottleneck lies in generation rather than understanding. Second, prompting models to reason in English closes the UE performance gap between low and high-resource languages, demonstrating that generation language matters more than the question language. Third, the choice of UE method should depend on model scale: at smaller scales, open-box probability-based methods outperform alternatives; at larger scales, closed-box self-verbalized uncertainty becomes superior. Finally, we provide an analysis of threshold selection for selective prediction, offering guidance on calibrating abstention in multilingual settings.

A key challenge in reliable LLM deployment is recognizing when uncertainty reflects irreducible variability in the task rather than limitations in the model's knowledge. In language tasks, a central source of such aleatoric uncertainty is input ambiguity or underspecification, where multiple interpretations remain plausible. Existing decomposition methods estimate aleatoric uncertainty by generating multiple clarifications of the input, querying the model for an answer under each clarification, and comparing the resulting answers. We argue that answers are not necessary for identifying ambiguity: they are often redundant, add avoidable cost, and can mislead through epistemic leakage. We support this claim theoretically, and propose a clarification-only approach that estimates this ambiguity-induced component directly from the space of plausible interpretations, without answers to the clarified inputs. Using ambiguity detection as an operational evaluation across three benchmarks, this direct approach improves AUROC (63.34 vs. 60.85), reduces computational cost by 4-26x in output tokens and 2.2-3.5x in API calls, and yields estimates with substantially lower correlation with epistemic uncertainty. Overall, our results suggest that ambiguity-induced aleatoric uncertainty is better estimated from the interpretation space than from the response space.