<i>Look Before You Leap:</i> An Exploratory Study of Uncertainty Analysis for Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent performance leap of Large Language Models (LLMs) opens up new opportunities across numerous industrial applications and domains. However, the potential erroneous behavior (e.g., the generation of misinformation and hallucination) has also raised severe concerns for the trustworthiness of LLMs, especially in safety-, security- and reliability-sensitive industrial scenarios, potentially hindering real-world adoptions. While uncertainty estimation has shown its potential for interpreting the prediction risks made by classic machine learning (ML) models, the unique characteristics of recent LLMs (e.g., adopting self-attention mechanism as its core, very largescale model size, often used in generative contexts) pose new challenges for the behavior analysis of LLMs. Up to the present, little progress has been made to better understand whether and to what extent uncertainty estimation can help characterize the capability boundary of an LLM, to counteract its undesired behavior, which is considered to be of great importance with the potential wide-range applications of LLMs across industry domains. To bridge the gap, in this paper, we initiate an early exploratory study of the risk assessment of LLMs from the lens of uncertainty. In particular, we conduct a large-scale study with as many as twelve uncertainty estimation methods and eight general LLMs on four NLP tasks and seven programming-capable LLMs on two code generation tasks to investigate to what extent uncertainty estimation techniques could help characterize the prediction risks of LLMs. Our findings confirm the potential of uncertainty estimation for revealing LLMs’ uncertain/nonfactual predictions. The insights derived from our study can pave the way for more advanced analysis and research on LLMs, ultimately aiming at enhancing their trustworthiness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".