LLM Reliability

It asks not only whether a model gets an answer right, but whether it knows when it may be wrong, follows constraints, uses evidence faithfully, and behaves consistently across repeated or multi-turn use. Researchers test these properties with adversarial and perturbation benchmarks, repeated-run and cross-language evaluations, domain-specific tasks, and audits of LLM judges and tool-using agents. Common approaches include estimating uncertainty from logits, hidden representations, or response agreement; selective abstention and conformal calibration; retrieval and symbolic verification; and training methods that reward grounded answers, correction, or hesitation. The central tension is that benchmark accuracy and verbal confidence often fail to predict reliability on individual cases, long tasks, or shifted inputs, while stronger checks and abstention trade coverage, latency, and cost for safer decisions.