Can LLMs Detect Their Confabulations? Estimating Reliability in Uncertainty-Aware Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08139v1
• Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 16:12:36 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs Detect Their Confabulations? Estimating Reliability in Uncertainty-Aware Language Models
• Authors: Tianyi Zhou, Johanne Medina, Sanjay Chawla,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to generating fluent but incorrect content, known as confabulation.<n>We investigate how in-context information influences model behavior and whether LLMs can identify their unreliable responses.
• Score: 24.72990207218907
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to generating fluent but incorrect content, known as confabulation, which poses increasing risks in multi-turn or agentic applications where outputs may be reused as context. In this work, we investigate how in-context information influences model behavior and whether LLMs can identify their unreliable responses. We propose a reliability estimation that leverages token-level uncertainty to guide the aggregation of internal model representations. Specifically, we compute aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty from output logits to identify salient tokens and aggregate their hidden states into compact representations for response-level reliability prediction. Through controlled experiments on open QA benchmarks, we find that correct in-context information improves both answer accuracy and model confidence, while misleading context often induces confidently incorrect responses, revealing a misalignment between uncertainty and correctness. Our probing-based method captures these shifts in model behavior and improves the detection of unreliable outputs across multiple open-source LLMs. These results underscore the limitations of direct uncertainty signals and highlight the potential of uncertainty-guided probing for reliability-aware generation.

Related papers

• Fact-Checking with Large Language Models via Probabilistic Certainty and Consistency [7.806516365113592]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in applications requiring factual accuracy.<n>While fact-checking can mitigate these errors, existing methods typically retrieve external evidence indiscriminately.<n>We introduce Probabilistic Certainty and Consistency (PCC), a framework that estimates factual confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-05T21:57:41Z)
• The Illusion of Certainty: Uncertainty quantification for LLMs fails under ambiguity [48.899855816199484]
  We introduce MAQA* and AmbigQA*, the first ambiguous question-answering (QA) datasets equipped with ground-truth answer distributions.<n>We show that predictive-distribution and ensemble-based estimators are fundamentally limited under ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T14:46:35Z)
• TokUR: Token-Level Uncertainty Estimation for Large Language Model Reasoning [27.449948943467163]
  We propose a Token-level Uncertainty estimation framework for Reasoning (TokUR)<n>TokUR enables Large Language Models to self-assess and self-improve their responses in mathematical reasoning.<n> Experiments on mathematical reasoning datasets of varying difficulty demonstrate that TokUR exhibits a strong correlation with answer correctness and model robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T22:47:32Z)
• Uncertainty Distillation: Teaching Language Models to Express Semantic Confidence [16.311538811237536]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for factual question-answering.<n>For these verbalized expressions of uncertainty to be meaningful, they should reflect the error rates at the expressed level of confidence.<n>We propose a simple procedure, uncertainty distillation, to teach an LLM to calibrated semantic confidences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T21:29:29Z)
• Estimating LLM Uncertainty with Evidence [66.51144261657983]
  We present Logits-induced token uncertainty (LogTokU) as a framework for estimating decoupled token uncertainty in Large Language Models.<n>We employ evidence modeling to implement LogTokU and use the estimated uncertainty to guide downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T03:18:02Z)
• On Verbalized Confidence Scores for LLMs [25.160810008907397]
  Uncertainty quantification for large language models (LLMs) can establish more human trust into their responses.<n>This work focuses on asking the LLM itself to verbalize its uncertainty with a confidence score as part of its output tokens.<n>We assess the reliability of verbalized confidence scores with respect to different datasets, models, and prompt methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T11:10:36Z)
• Label-Confidence-Aware Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation [8.635811152610604]
  Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is crucial for ensuring the safety and robustness of AI systems.<n>We propose a label-confidence-aware (LCA) uncertainty estimation based on Kullback-Leibler divergence bridging between samples and label source.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T07:35:23Z)
• Enhancing Trust in Large Language Models with Uncertainty-Aware Fine-Tuning [10.457661605916435]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized the field of natural language processing with their impressive reasoning and question-answering capabilities.<n>LLMs are sometimes prone to generating credible-sounding but incorrect information, a phenomenon known as hallucinations.<n>We introduce a novel uncertainty-aware causal language modeling loss function, grounded in the principles of decision theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-03T23:14:47Z)
• 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)
• Fact-Checking the Output of Large Language Models via Token-Level Uncertainty Quantification [116.77055746066375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are notorious for hallucinating, i.e., producing erroneous claims in their output. We propose a novel fact-checking and hallucination detection pipeline based on token-level uncertainty quantification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T17:44:17Z)
• Decomposing Uncertainty for Large Language Models through Input Clarification Ensembling [69.83976050879318]
  In large language models (LLMs), identifying sources of uncertainty is an important step toward improving reliability, trustworthiness, and interpretability. In this paper, we introduce an uncertainty decomposition framework for LLMs, called input clarification ensembling. Our approach generates a set of clarifications for the input, feeds them into an LLM, and ensembles the corresponding predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T05:58:35Z)
• 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)

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.