Do LLMs estimate uncertainty well in instruction-following?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14582v3
• Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:59:50 GMT
• Title: Do LLMs estimate uncertainty well in instruction-following?
• Authors: Juyeon Heo, Miao Xiong, Christina Heinze-Deml, Jaya Narain,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) could be valuable personal AI agents across various domains, provided they can precisely follow user instructions. We present the first systematic evaluation of the uncertainty estimation abilities of LLMs in the context of instruction-following. Our findings show that existing uncertainty methods struggle, particularly when models make subtle errors in instruction following.
• Score: 9.081508933326644
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) could be valuable personal AI agents across various domains, provided they can precisely follow user instructions. However, recent studies have shown significant limitations in LLMs' instruction-following capabilities, raising concerns about their reliability in high-stakes applications. Accurately estimating LLMs' uncertainty in adhering to instructions is critical to mitigating deployment risks. We present, to our knowledge, the first systematic evaluation of the uncertainty estimation abilities of LLMs in the context of instruction-following. Our study identifies key challenges with existing instruction-following benchmarks, where multiple factors are entangled with uncertainty stems from instruction-following, complicating the isolation and comparison across methods and models. To address these issues, we introduce a controlled evaluation setup with two benchmark versions of data, enabling a comprehensive comparison of uncertainty estimation methods under various conditions. Our findings show that existing uncertainty methods struggle, particularly when models make subtle errors in instruction following. While internal model states provide some improvement, they remain inadequate in more complex scenarios. The insights from our controlled evaluation setups provide a crucial understanding of LLMs' limitations and potential for uncertainty estimation in instruction-following tasks, paving the way for more trustworthy AI agents.

Related papers

• PredictaBoard: Benchmarking LLM Score Predictability [50.47497036981544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpredictably. This poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment. We present PredictaBoard, a novel collaborative benchmarking framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T10:52:38Z)
• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions. Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes. We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
• An Empirical Analysis of Uncertainty in Large Language Model Evaluations [28.297464655099034]
  We conduct experiments involving 9 widely used LLM evaluators across 2 different evaluation settings. We pinpoint that LLM evaluators exhibit varying uncertainty based on model families and sizes. We find that employing special prompting strategies, whether during inference or post-training, can alleviate evaluation uncertainty to some extent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-15T07:45:20Z)
• Estimating LLM Uncertainty with Logits [39.145322355643906]
  We introduce Logits- Token Uncertainty (LogU), a novel framework designed to estimate token-specific uncertainty in Large Language Models in real time. Our experimental findings highlight the substantial effectiveness and potential of LogU, marking a significant advancement in addressing the challenge of model hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T03:18:02Z)
• UAlign: Leveraging Uncertainty Estimations for Factuality Alignment on Large Language Models [41.67393607081513]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to accurately express the factual knowledge they possess. We propose the UAlign framework, which leverages Uncertainty estimations to represent knowledge boundaries. We show that the proposed UAlign can significantly enhance the LLMs' capacities to confidently answer known questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-16T14:14:27Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Uncertainty Estimation and Quantification for LLMs: A Simple Supervised Approach [6.209293868095268]
  We study the problem of uncertainty estimation and calibration for LLMs. We propose a supervised approach that leverages labeled datasets to estimate the uncertainty in LLMs' responses. Our method is easy to implement and adaptable to different levels of model accessibility including black box, grey box, and white box.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T17:10:35Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification [91.72588235407379]
  The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive evaluation methods. We introduce a new benchmarking approach for LLMs that integrates uncertainty quantification. Our findings reveal that: I) LLMs with higher accuracy may exhibit lower certainty; II) Larger-scale LLMs may display greater uncertainty compared to their smaller counterparts; and III) Instruction-finetuning tends to increase the uncertainty of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T14:29:17Z)

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.