LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Uncertainty in large language model (LLM)-based systems is often studied at the level of a single model output, yet deployed LLM applications are compound systems in which uncertainty is transformed and reused across model internals, workflow stages, component boundaries, persistent state, and human or organisational processes. Without principled treatment of how uncertainty is carried and reused across these boundaries, early errors can propagate and compound in ways that are difficult to detect and govern. This paper develops a systems-level account of uncertainty propagation. It introduces a conceptual framing for characterising propagated uncertainty signals, presents a structured taxonomy spanning intra-model (P1), system-level (P2), and socio-technical (P3) propagation mechanisms, synthesises cross-cutting engineering insights, and identifies five open research challenges.

Scaling test-time computation with reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a reliable path to improve large language models (LLM) reasoning ability. Yet, outcome-based reward often incentivizes models to be overconfident, leading to hallucinations, unreliable confidence-based control, and unnecessary compute allocation. We introduce Reinforcement Learning with Confidence Margin (\textbf{RLCM}), a calibration-aware RL framework that jointly optimizes correctness and confidence reliability via a margin-enhanced process reward over intermediate-budget completions. Rather than aligning confidence to correctness likelihoods, RLCM encourages to widen the confidence margin between correct and incorrect steps within a single reasoning trajectory. Across mathematical, code, logic and science benchmarks, our method substantially improves calibration while maintaining or improving accuracy. We further show that, with calibrated confidence signals, the resulting models enable more efficient conformal risk control and effective confidence-weighted aggregation.

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.

Large language models can detect their own errors and sometimes correct them without external feedback, but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. We investigate this through the lens of second-order models of confidence from decision neuroscience. In a first-order system, confidence derives from the generation signal itself and is therefore maximal for the chosen response, precluding error detection. Second-order models posit a partially independent evaluative signal that can disagree with the committed response, providing the basis for error detection. Kumaran et al. (2026) showed that LLMs cache a confidence representation at a token immediately following the answer (i.e. post-answer newline: PANL) -- that causally drives verbal confidence and dissociates from log-probabilities. Here we test whether this PANL signal extends beyond confidence to support error detection and self-correction. Here we test whether this signal supports error detection and self-correction, deriving predictions from the second-order framework. Using a verify-then-correct paradigm, we show that: (i) verbal confidence predicts error detection far beyond token log-probabilities, ruling out a first-order account; (ii) PANL activations predict error detection beyond verbal confidence itself; and (iii) PANL predicts which errors the model can correct -- where all behavioural signals fail. Causal interventions confirm that PANL signals rescue error detection behavior when answer information is corrupted. All findings replicate across models (Gemma 3 27B and Qwen 2.5 7B) and tasks (TriviaQA and MNLI). These results reveal that LLMs naturally implement a second-order confidence architecture whose internal evaluative signal encodes not only whether an answer is likely wrong but whether the model has the knowledge to fix it.

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to express calibrated uncertainty is important for safe deployment. Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is widely used to improve accuracy and reliability, but its effect on calibration is not fully understood. We show that this picture is incomplete: in some settings, increasing the reasoning budget beyond a task-specific threshold can cause models to become systematically overconfident, assigning high confidence to incorrect answers. We call this phenomenon Calibration Drift Under Reasoning (CDUR) and study it both theoretically and empirically. We define reasoning budget B and analyze conditions under which Expected Calibration Error ECE(B) follows a non-monotonic pattern: it first decreases as reasoning corrects errors, then increases as longer reasoning produces internally consistent but incorrect explanations. We propose a Hypothesis Lock-In model based on autoregressive generation to explain this behavior. We evaluate Llama-3.1-8B and Llama-3.3-70B on 47 reasoning-trap questions across four reasoning budgets and three seeds (1,368 API calls; 574 valid responses). The 8B model shows non-monotonic calibration behavior, while results for the 70B model are limited to baseline evaluation and are inconclusive for budget-dependent effects. We introduce CABStop, a calibration-aware stopping rule that halts reasoning when confidence diverges from an auxiliary accuracy estimate. These results suggest that increasing reasoning depth does not always improve reliability and should be monitored carefully.

Verbal confidence elicitation is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from LLMs. We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models (3-9B parameters, four families) produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria for item-level Type-2 discrimination under minimal numeric elicitation with greedy decoding. In a pre-registered study (OSF: osf.io/azbvx), 524 TriviaQA items were administered under numeric (0-100) and categorical (10-class) elicitation to eight models at Q5_K_M quantisation on consumer hardware, yielding 8,384 deterministic trials. A psychometric validity screen was applied to each model-format cell. All seven instruct models were classified Invalid on numeric confidence (H2 confirmed, 7/7 vs. predicted >=4/7), with a mean ceiling rate of 91.7% (H1 confirmed). Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity. Instead, it disrupted task performance in six of seven models, producing accuracy below 5% (H4 not confirmed). Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime (H5 confirmed, mean cross-validated R^2 < 0.01). Within the reasoning-distilled model, reasoning-trace length showed a strong negative partial correlation with confidence (rho = -0.36, p < .001), consistent with the Reasoning Contamination Effect. These results do not imply that internal uncertainty representations are absent. They show that minimal verbal elicitation fails to preserve internal signals at the output interface in this model-size regime. Psychometric screening should precede any downstream use of such signals.

Large language models can be uncertain yet correct, or confident yet wrong, raising the question of whether their output-level uncertainty and their actual correctness are driven by the same internal mechanisms or by distinct feature populations. We introduce a 2x2 framework that partitions model predictions along correctness and confidence axes, and uses sparse autoencoders to identify features associated with each dimension independently. Applying this to Llama-3.1-8B and Gemma-2-9B, we identify three feature populations that play fundamentally different functional roles. Pure uncertainty features are functionally essential: suppressing them severely degrades accuracy. Pure incorrectness features are functionally inert: despite showing statistically significant activation differences between correct and incorrect predictions, the majority produce near-zero change in accuracy when suppressed. Confounded features that encode both signals are detrimental to output quality, and targeted suppression of them yields a 1.1% accuracy improvement and a 75% entropy reduction, with effects transferring across the ARC-Challenge and RACE benchmarks. The feature categories are also informationally distinct: the activations of just 3 confounded features from a single mid-network layer predict model correctness (AUROC ~0.79), enabling selective abstention that raises accuracy from 62% to 81% at 53% coverage. The results demonstrate that uncertainty and correctness are distinct internal phenomena, with implications for interpretability and targeted inference-time intervention.

Reasoning language models can solve increasingly complex tasks, but struggle to produce the calibrated confidence estimates necessary for reliable deployment. Existing calibration methods usually depend on labels or repeated sampling at inference time, making them impractical in many settings. We introduce a method for unsupervised confidence calibration of reasoning LLMs when only a single generation is available at inference time. Our approach uses offline sampling on unlabeled data to derive a self-consistency-based proxy target, then distills this signal into a lightweight deployment-time confidence predictor. In a broad evaluation across 5 math and question-answering tasks using 9 reasoning models, our method substantially outperforms baselines, including under distribution shift, and improves downstream performance in selective prediction and simulated downstream decision-making.

This paper studies uncertainty quantification for large language models (LLMs) under black-box access, where only a small number of responses can be sampled for each query. In this setting, estimating the effective semantic alphabet size--that is, the number of distinct meanings expressed in the sampled responses--provides a useful proxy for downstream risk. However, frequency-based estimators tend to undercount rare semantic modes when the sample size is small, while graph-spectral quantities alone are not designed to estimate semantic occupancy accurately. To address this issue, we propose SHADE (Soft-Hybrid Alphabet Dynamic Estimator), a simple and interpretable estimator that combines Generalized Good-Turing coverage with a heat-kernel trace of the normalized Laplacian constructed from an entailment-weighted graph over sampled responses. The estimated coverage adaptively determines the fusion rule: under high coverage, SHADE uses a convex combination of the two signals, while under low coverage it applies a LogSumExp fusion to emphasize missing or weakly observed semantic modes. A finite-sample correction is then introduced to stabilize the resulting cardinality estimate before converting it into a coverage-adjusted semantic entropy score. Experiments on pooled semantic alphabet-size estimation against large-sample references and on QA incorrectness detection show that SHADE achieves the strongest improvements in the most sample-limited regime, while the performance gap narrows as the number of samples increases. These results suggest that hybrid semantic occupancy estimation is particularly beneficial when black-box uncertainty quantification must operate under tight sampling budgets.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have empowered autonomous web agents to execute natural language instructions directly on real-world webpages. However, existing agents often struggle with complex tasks involving dynamic interactions and long-horizon execution due to rigid planning strategies and hallucination-prone reasoning. To address these limitations, we propose WebUncertainty, a novel autonomous agent framework designed to tackle dual-level uncertainty in planning and reasoning. Specifically, we design a Task Uncertainty-Driven Adaptive Planning Mechanism that adaptively selects planning modes to navigate unknown environments. Furthermore, we introduce an Action Uncertainty-Driven Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) Reasoning Mechanism. This mechanism incorporates the Confidence-induced Action Uncertainty (ConActU) strategy to quantify both aleatoric uncertainty (AU) and epistemic uncertainty (EU), thereby optimizing the search process and guiding robust decision-making. Experimental results on the WebArena and WebVoyager benchmarks demonstrate that WebUncertainty achieves superior performance compared to state-of-the-art baselines.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

LLM confidence signals are used for abstention, routing, and safety-critical decisions. No standard practice exists for checking whether a confidence signal carries item-level information before building on it. We transfer the validity screening principle from clinical personality assessment (PAI, MMPI-3) as a portable protocol for benchmark-based LLM confidence data. The protocol specifies three core indices (L, Fp, RBS), a structural indicator (TRIN), and an item-sensitivity statistic, computed from a single 2x2 contingency table. A three-tier classification system (Invalid, Indeterminate, Valid) draws on four clinical traditions. Validated on 20 frontier LLMs across 524 items, four models are classified Invalid, two Indeterminate. Valid-profile models show mean r = .18 (15/16 significant). Invalid-profile models show mean r = -.20 (d = 2.48). Cross-benchmark validation on 18 models using MMLU with verbalized confidence and on external data from Yang et al. (2024) confirms the screen transfers across benchmarks and probe formats. All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

Clinical personality assessment screens response validity before interpreting substantive scales. LLM evaluation does not. We apply the validity scaling framework from the PAI and MMPI-3 to metacognitive probe data from 20 frontier models across 524 items. Six validity indices are operationalised: L (maintaining confidence on errors), K (betting on errors), F (withdrawing consensus-endorsed items), Fp (withdrawing correct answers), RBS (inverted monitoring), and TRIN (fixed responding). A tiered classification system identifies four models as construct-level invalid and two as elevated. Valid-profile models produce item-sensitive confidence (mean r = .18, 14 of 16 significant). Invalid-profile models do not (mean r = -.20, d = 2.17, p = .001). Chain-of-thought training produces two opposite response distortions. Two latent dimensions account for 94.6% of index variance. Companion papers extract a portable screening protocol (Cacioli, 2026e) and validate it against selective prediction (Cacioli, 2026f). All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

Reliable Large Language Models (LLMs) should abstain when confidence is insufficient. However, prior studies often treat refusal as a generic "I don't know'', failing to distinguish input-level ambiguity (data uncertainty) from capability limitations (model uncertainty). This lack of distinction limits downstream action decisions like requesting clarification or invoking external tools. In this work, we introduce UA-Bench, a benchmark of over 3,500 questions drawn from six datasets spanning knowledge-intensive and reasoning-intensive tasks, designed to evaluate explicit uncertainty attribution. An evaluation of 18 frontier LLMs shows that even state-of-the-art models struggle to reliably discriminate between data uncertainty and model uncertainty, and that high answer accuracy does not necessarily imply strong uncertainty attribution ability. To narrow this gap, we propose a lightweight data synthesis and reinforcement learning strategy. Experiments on both Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 and Qwen3-8B in thinking mode show that the proposed method improves uncertainty attribution while preserving answer accuracy. Our code and data are publicly available now.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in various perception and reasoning tasks. Despite this success, ensuring their reliability in practical deployment necessitates robust confidence estimation. Prior works have predominantly focused on text-only LLMs, often relying on computationally expensive self-consistency sampling. In this paper, we extend this to multimodal settings and conduct a comprehensive evaluation of MLLMs' response confidence estimation. Our analysis reveals a significant instinct-reflection misalignment: the model's implicit token-level support frequently diverges from its verbal self-assessment confidence. To address this misalignment, we propose a monotone confidence fusion framework to merge dual-channel signals and cross-channel consistency to estimate correctness. Subsequently, an order-preserving mean alignment step is applied to correct global bias, which improves calibration while preserving the risk-coverage trade-off for selective prediction. Experiments on diverse open-source and closed-source MLLMs show that our method consistently yields more reliable confidence estimates and improves both calibration and failure prediction. Code will be available at https://github.com/Yunkaidang/Instinct-vs.-Reflection.

Despite their substantial successes, AI agents continue to face fundamental challenges in terms of trustworthiness. Consider deep research agents, tasked with searching for information relevant to a given topic-while AI agents can perform effective information retrieval, there is little guarantee regarding the completeness of this information. Gaps in retrieved information can leave biases that mislead users even if the information they are given is correct and relevant. We introduce SeekerGym, a benchmark designed to evaluate the completeness of information retrieved by AI agents. In addition, SeekerGym also measures how well agents quantify their uncertainty in the completeness of their information; if an agent fails to retrieve all relevant information, it is useful for it to at least quantify how much might be missing. At a high level, each task in SeekerGym is a document (e.g., a Wikipedia article), and the AI agent must issue queries to retrieve passages from that document. Intuitively, the document comprehensively covers a topic, so the ability to retrieve its sections directly measures completeness of information retrieval. In addition to Wikipedia, we also consider machine learning survey papers, where the goal is to retrieve relevant sections of a survey paper. We benchmark several models and algorithms; the best approaches retrieve 42.5% of passages on Wikipedia and 29.2% on ML Surveys, leaving substantial room for improvement.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce confident yet incorrect responses, and uncertainty quantification is one potential solution to more robust usage. Recent works routinely rely on self-consistency to estimate aleatoric uncertainty (AU), yet this proxy collapses when models are overconfident and produce the same incorrect answer across samples. We analyze this regime and show that cross-model semantic disagreement is higher on incorrect answers precisely when AU is low. Motivated by this, we introduce an epistemic uncertainty (EU) term that operates in the black-box access setting: EU uses only generated text from a small, scale-matched ensemble and is computed as the gap between inter-model and intra-model sequence-semantic similarity. We then define total uncertainty (TU) as the sum of AU and EU. In a comprehensive study across five 7-9B instruction-tuned models and ten long-form tasks, TU improves ranking calibration and selective abstention relative to AU, and EU reliably flags confident failures where AU is low. We further characterize when EU is most useful via agreement and complementarity diagnostics.

As large language models (LLMs) transition into autonomous agents integrated with extensive tool ecosystems, traditional routing heuristics increasingly succumb to context pollution and "overthinking". We argue that the bottleneck is not a deficit in algorithmic capability or skill diversity, but the absence of disciplined second-order metacognitive governance. In this paper, our scientific contribution focuses on the computational translation of human cognitive control - specifically, delayed appraisal, epistemic vigilance, and region-of-proximal offloading - into a single-agent architecture. We introduce MESA-S (Metacognitive Skills for Agents, Single-agent), a preliminary framework that shifts scalar confidence estimation into a vector separating self-confidence (parametric certainty) from source-confidence (trust in retrieved external procedures). By formalizing a delayed procedural probe mechanism and introducing Metacognitive Skill Cards, MESA-S decouples the awareness of a skill's utility from its token-intensive execution. Evaluated under an In-Context Static Benchmark Evaluation natively executed via Gemini 3.1 Pro, our early results suggest that explicitly programming trust provenance and delayed escalation mitigates supply-chain vulnerabilities, prunes unnecessary reasoning loops, and prevents offloading-induced confidence inflation. This architecture offers a scientifically cautious, behaviorally anchored step toward reliable, epistemically vigilant single-agent orchestration.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in settings where reliability matters, yet output-level uncertainty signals such as token probabilities, entropy, and self-consistency can become brittle under calibration--deployment mismatch. Conformal prediction provides finite-sample validity under exchangeability, but its practical usefulness depends on the quality of the nonconformity score. We propose a conformal framework for LLM question answering that uses internal representations rather than output-facing statistics: specifically, we introduce Layer-Wise Information (LI) scores, which measure how conditioning on the input reshapes predictive entropy across model depth, and use them as nonconformity scores within a standard split conformal pipeline. Across closed-ended and open-domain QA benchmarks, with the clearest gains under cross-domain shift, our method achieves a better validity--efficiency trade-off than strong text-level baselines while maintaining competitive in-domain reliability at the same nominal risk level. These results suggest that internal representations can provide more informative conformal scores when surface-level uncertainty is unstable under distribution shift.

Uncertainty estimation is a promising approach to detect hallucinations in large language models (LLMs). Recent approaches commonly depend on model internal states to estimate uncertainty. However, they suffer from strict assumptions on how hidden states should evolve across layers, and from information loss by solely focusing on last or mean tokens. To address these issues, we present Sequential Internal Variance Representation (SIVR), a supervised hallucination detection framework that leverages token-wise, layer-wise features derived from hidden states. SIVR adopts a more basic assumption that uncertainty manifests in the degree of dispersion or variance of internal representations across layers, rather than relying on specific assumptions, which makes the method model and task agnostic. It additionally aggregates the full sequence of per-token variance features, learning temporal patterns indicative of factual errors and thereby preventing information loss. Experimental results demonstrate SIVR consistently outperforms strong baselines. Most importantly, SIVR enjoys stronger generalisation and avoids relying on large training sets, highlighting the potential for practical deployment. Our code repository is available online at https://github.com/ponhvoan/internal-variance.

Machine learning in high-stakes domains such as healthcare requires not only strong predictive performance but also reliable uncertainty quantification (UQ) to support human oversight. Multi-label text classification (MLTC) is a central task in this domain, yet remains challenging due to label imbalances, dependencies, and combinatorial complexity. Existing MLTC benchmarks are increasingly saturated and may be affected by training data contamination, making it difficult to distinguish genuine reasoning capabilities from memorization. We introduce MADE, a living MLTC benchmark derived from {m}edical device {ad}verse {e}vent reports and continuously updated with newly published reports to prevent contamination. MADE features a long-tailed distribution of hierarchical labels and enables reproducible evaluation with strict temporal splits. We establish baselines across more than 20 encoder- and decoder-only models under fine-tuning and few-shot settings (instruction-tuned/reasoning variants, local/API-accessible). We systematically assess entropy-/consistency-based and self-verbalized UQ methods. Results show clear trade-offs: smaller discriminatively fine-tuned decoders achieve the strongest head-to-tail accuracy while maintaining competitive UQ; generative fine-tuning delivers the most reliable UQ; large reasoning models improve performance on rare labels yet exhibit surprisingly weak UQ; and self-verbalized confidence is not a reliable proxy for uncertainty. Our work is publicly available at https://hhi.fraunhofer.de/aml-demonstrator/made-benchmark.

Despite the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), uncertainty quantification in LLM generation is a persistent challenge. Although recent approaches have achieved strong performance by restricting LLMs to produce short or constrained answer sets, many real-world applications require long-form and free-form text generation. A key difficulty in this setting is that LLMs often produce responses that are semantically coherent yet factually inaccurate, while the underlying semantics are multifaceted and the linguistic structure is complex. To tackle this challenge, this paper introduces Interrogative Uncertainty Quantification (IUQ), a novel framework that leverages inter-sample consistency and intra-sample faithfulness to quantify the uncertainty in long-form LLM outputs. By utilizing an interrogate-then-respond paradigm, our method provides reliable measures of claim-level uncertainty and the model's faithfulness. Experimental results across diverse model families and model sizes demonstrate the superior performance of IUQ over two widely used long-form generation datasets. The code is available at https://github.com/louisfanhz/IUQ.

Large language models are increasingly integrated into decision-making in areas such as healthcare, law, finance, engineering, and government. Yet they share a critical limitation: they produce fluent outputs even when their internal reasoning has drifted. A confident answer can conceal uncertainty, speculation, or inconsistency, and small changes in phrasing can lead to different conclusions. This makes LLMs useful assistants but unreliable partners in high-stakes contexts. Humans exhibit a similar weakness, often mistaking fluency for reliability. When a model responds smoothly, users tend to trust it, even when both model and user are drifting together. This paper is the first in a five-paper research series on stabilising human-AI reasoning. The series proposes a two-layer approach: Parts II-IV introduce human-side mechanisms such as uncertainty cues, conflict surfacing, and auditable reasoning traces, while Part V develops a model-side Epistemic Control Loop (ECL) that detects instability and modulates generation accordingly. Together, these layers form a missing operational substrate for governance by increasing signal-to-noise at the point of use. Stabilising interaction makes uncertainty and drift visible before enforcement is applied, enabling more precise capability governance. This aligns with emerging compliance expectations, including the EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001, by making reasoning processes traceable under real conditions of use. The central claim is that fluency is not reliability. Without structures that stabilise both human and model reasoning, AI cannot be trusted or governed where it matters most.

Clinical language models (LMs) are increasingly applied to support clinical risk prediction from free-text notes, yet their uncertainty estimates often remain poorly calibrated and clinically unreliable. In this work, we propose Clinical Uncertainty Risk Alignment (CURA), a framework that aligns clinical LM-based risk estimates and uncertainty with both individual error likelihoods and cohort-level ambiguities. CURA first fine-tunes domain-specific clinical LMs to obtain task-adapted patient embeddings, and then performs uncertainty fine-tuning of a multi-head classifier using a bi-level uncertainty objective. Specifically, an individual-level calibration term aligns predictive uncertainty with each patient's likelihood of error, while a cohort-aware regularizer pulls risk estimates toward event rates in their local neighborhoods in the embedding space and places extra weight on ambiguous cohorts near the decision boundary. We further show that this cohort-aware term can be interpreted as a cross-entropy loss with neighborhood-informed soft labels, providing a label-smoothing view of our method. Extensive experiments on MIMIC-IV clinical risk prediction tasks across various clinical LMs show that CURA consistently improves calibration metrics without substantially compromising discrimination. Further analysis illustrates that CURA reduces overconfident false reassurance and yields more trustworthy uncertainty estimates for downstream clinical decision support.

Recent work has shown that the hidden states of large language models contain signals useful for uncertainty estimation, motivating a growing interest in efficient probe-based approaches. Yet it remains unclear how robust existing methods are, with prior work reporting conflicting conclusions under substantially different evaluation settings. We address this by introducing ProbeDrift, a systematic evaluation framework for supervised uncertainty probes covering a wide range of OOD settings across models, tasks, and distributional shifts. Using ProbeDrift, we train over 2,000 probes to disentangle the effect of key design choices, showing poor robustness of current methods beyond near-OOD settings. We find that robustness is driven by design decisions that have a largely invisible effect in-distribution, including the choice of feature type, aggregation strategy, and training signal. We argue that robust uncertainty estimation requires robust evaluation. To support this, we release ProbeDrift as a lightweight Python library that contains the train and test splits underpinning our extensive evaluation. We also show how insights from our evaluation can directly lead to more robust methods through a simple Hybrid Back-Off (HBO) strategy.

Large language model (LLM) evaluation platforms increasingly rely on pairwise human judgments. These data are noisy, sparse, and non-uniform, yet leaderboards are reported with limited uncertainty quantification. We study this as semiparametric inference for a low-rank latent score tensor observed through pairwise comparisons under Bradley-Terry-Luce-type models. This places LLM evaluation in a new tensor completion setting with structured observations, non-uniform sampling, and pairwise contrasts. Our target is a smooth functional $ψ(T^\star)$, including linear estimands such as ability gaps and nonlinear ones such as win probabilities. We derive the information operator on the low-rank tangent space, the efficient influence function, and the semiparametric efficiency bound, then construct a one-step debiased estimator with asymptotic normality. A central challenge is that the information operator is anisotropic and does not commute with the tangent-space projection, creating a bottleneck absent from isotropic models. We introduce a score-whitening method that equalizes local Fisher information and restores stable inference at the optimal sample-complexity scale. Our results provide a principled framework for uncertainty quantification in LLM evaluation and more broadly for inference on low-rank structures from pairwise data.

Detecting whether a model's internal knowledge is sufficient to correctly answer a given question is a fundamental challenge in deploying responsible LLMs. In addition to verbalising the confidence by LLM self-report, more recent methods explore the model internals, such as the hidden states of the response tokens, to capture how much knowledge is activated. We argue that such activated knowledge may not align with what the query requires, e.g., capturing the stylistic and length-related features that are uninformative for answering the query. To fill the gap, we propose GRADE (GRAdient Dynamics for knowlEdge gap detection), which quantifies the knowledge gap via the cross-layer rank ratio of the gradient to that of the corresponding hidden state subspace. This is motivated by the property of gradients as estimators of the required knowledge updates for a given target. We validate GRADE on six benchmarks, demonstrating its effectiveness and robustness to input perturbations. In addition, we present a case study demonstrating how the gradient chain can generate interpretable explanations of knowledge gaps in long-form answers. Code is available at https://github.com/yjEugenia/llm-aware

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional proficiency in code completion, they typically adhere to a Hard Completion (HC) paradigm, compelling the generation of fully concrete code even amidst insufficient context. Our analysis of 3 million real-world interactions exposes the limitations of this strategy: 61% of the generated suggestions were either edited after acceptance or rejected despite exhibiting over 80% similarity to the user's subsequent code, suggesting that models frequently make erroneous predictions at specific token positions. Motivated by this observation, we propose Adaptive Placeholder Completion (APC), a collaborative framework that extends HC by strategically outputting explicit placeholders at high-entropy positions, allowing users to fill directly via IDE navigation. Theoretically, we formulate code completion as a cost-minimization problem under uncertainty. Premised on the observation that filling placeholders incurs lower cost than correcting errors, we prove the existence of a critical entropy threshold above which APC achieves strictly lower expected cost than HC. We instantiate this framework by constructing training data from filtered real-world edit logs and design a cost-based reward function for reinforcement learning. Extensive evaluations across 1.5B--14B parameter models demonstrate that APC reduces expected editing costs from 19% to 50% while preserving standard HC performance. Our work provides both a theoretical foundation and a practical training framework for uncertainty-aware code completion, demonstrating that adaptive abstention can be learned end-to-end without sacrificing conventional completion quality.

A robust decision-making process must take into account uncertainty, especially when the choice involves inherent risks. Because artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly integrated into decision-making workflows, managing uncertainty relies more and more on the metacognitive capabilities of these systems; i.e, their ability to assess the reliability of and regulate their own decisions. Hence, it is crucial to employ robust methods to measure the metacognitive abilities of AI. This paper is primarily a methodological contribution that highlights a key limitation of commonly used measures of AI metacognitive sensitivity--the ability to generate confidence ratings that distinguish correct from incorrect responses. We then draw attention to the meta-d' framework, a well-established approach from psychology and neuroscience designed to address this limitation. Moreover, we propose to leverage signal detection theory (SDT) to measure the ability of AIs to spontaneously regulate their decisions based on uncertainty and risk. To demonstrate the practical utility of these psychophysical frameworks, we conduct two series of experiments on three large language models (LLMs)--GPT-5, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, and Mistral-Medium-2508.

Existing methods for quantifying predictive uncertainty in neural networks are either computationally intractable for large language models or require access to training data that is typically unavailable. We derive a lightweight alternative through two approximations: a first-order Taylor expansion that expresses uncertainty in terms of the gradient of the prediction and the parameter covariance, and an isotropy assumption on the parameter covariance. Together, these yield epistemic uncertainty as the squared gradient norm and aleatoric uncertainty as the Bernoulli variance of the point prediction, from a single forward-backward pass through an unmodified pretrained model. We justify the isotropy assumption by showing that covariance estimates built from non-training data introduce structured distortions that isotropic covariance avoids, and that theoretical results on the spectral properties of large networks support the approximation at scale. Validation against reference Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimates on synthetic problems shows strong correspondence that improves with model size. We then use the estimates to investigate when each uncertainty type carries useful signal for predicting answer correctness in question answering with large language models, revealing a benchmark-dependent divergence: the combined estimate achieves the highest mean AUROC on TruthfulQA, where questions involve genuine conflict between plausible answers, but falls to near chance on TriviaQA's factual recall, suggesting that parameter-level uncertainty captures a fundamentally different signal than self-assessment methods.