Are Large Language Models More Honest in Their Probabilistic or Verbalized Confidence?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09773v1
• Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 08:01:11 GMT
• Title: Are Large Language Models More Honest in Their Probabilistic or Verbalized Confidence?
• Authors: Shiyu Ni, Keping Bi, Lulu Yu, Jiafeng Guo,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have been found to produce hallucinations when the question exceeds their internal knowledge boundaries. Existing research on LLMs' perception of their knowledge boundaries typically uses either the probability of the generated tokens or the verbalized confidence as the model's confidence in its response.
• Score: 26.69630281310365
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been found to produce hallucinations when the question exceeds their internal knowledge boundaries. A reliable model should have a clear perception of its knowledge boundaries, providing correct answers within its scope and refusing to answer when it lacks knowledge. Existing research on LLMs' perception of their knowledge boundaries typically uses either the probability of the generated tokens or the verbalized confidence as the model's confidence in its response. However, these studies overlook the differences and connections between the two. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis and comparison of LLMs' probabilistic perception and verbalized perception of their factual knowledge boundaries. First, we investigate the pros and cons of these two perceptions. Then, we study how they change under questions of varying frequencies. Finally, we measure the correlation between LLMs' probabilistic confidence and verbalized confidence. Experimental results show that 1) LLMs' probabilistic perception is generally more accurate than verbalized perception but requires an in-domain validation set to adjust the confidence threshold. 2) Both perceptions perform better on less frequent questions. 3) It is challenging for LLMs to accurately express their internal confidence in natural language.

Related papers

• Confidence in the Reasoning of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Confidence is measured in terms of persistence in keeping their answer when prompted to reconsider. Confidence is only partially explained by the underlying token-level probability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T10:04:29Z)
• Learning to Route LLMs with Confidence Tokens [43.63392143501436]
  We study the extent to which large language models can reliably indicate confidence in their answers. We propose Self-REF, a lightweight training strategy to teach LLMs to express confidence in a reliable manner. Compared to conventional approaches such as verbalizing confidence and examining token probabilities, we demonstrate empirically that confidence tokens show significant improvements in downstream routing and rejection learning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T07:28:18Z)
• LLM Internal States Reveal Hallucination Risk Faced With a Query [62.29558761326031]
  Humans have a self-awareness process that allows us to recognize what we don't know when faced with queries. This paper investigates whether Large Language Models can estimate their own hallucination risk before response generation. By a probing estimator, we leverage LLM self-assessment, achieving an average hallucination estimation accuracy of 84.32% at run time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T17:08:52Z)
• Teaching Large Language Models to Express Knowledge Boundary from Their Own Signals [53.273592543786705]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved great success, but their occasional content fabrication, or hallucination, limits their practical application. We propose CoKE, which first probes LLMs' knowledge boundary via internal confidence given a set of questions, and then leverages the probing results to elicit the expression of the knowledge boundary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T10:07:20Z)
• LACIE: Listener-Aware Finetuning for Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models [69.68379406317682]
  We introduce a listener-aware finetuning method (LACIE) to calibrate implicit and explicit confidence markers. We show that LACIE models the listener, considering not only whether an answer is right, but whether it will be accepted by a listener. We find that training with LACIE results in 47% fewer incorrect answers being accepted while maintaining the same level of acceptance for correct answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T17:16:38Z)
• Can Large Language Models Faithfully Express Their Intrinsic Uncertainty in Words? [21.814007454504978]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) should be capable of expressing their intrinsic uncertainty in natural language. We formalize faithful response uncertainty based on the gap between the model's intrinsic confidence in the assertions it makes and the decisiveness by which they are conveyed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T07:56:23Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities. If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information. To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know [13.939511057660013]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into decision-making processes. To earn human trust, LLMs must be well calibrated so that they can accurately assess and communicate the likelihood of their predictions being correct. Here we explore the calibration gap, which refers to the difference between human confidence in LLM-generated answers and the models' actual confidence, and the discrimination gap, which reflects how well humans and models can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T22:21:04Z)
• Improving the Reliability of Large Language Models by Leveraging Uncertainty-Aware In-Context Learning [76.98542249776257]
  Large-scale language models often face the challenge of "hallucination" We introduce an uncertainty-aware in-context learning framework to empower the model to enhance or reject its output in response to uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T12:06:53Z)
• The Confidence-Competence Gap in Large Language Models: A Cognitive Study [3.757390057317548]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have acquired ubiquitous attention for their performances across diverse domains. We exploit these models with diverse sets of questionnaires and real-world scenarios. Our findings reveal intriguing instances where models demonstrate high confidence even when they answer incorrectly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T03:50:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.