Towards Reliable Truth-Aligned Uncertainty Estimation in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00445v1
• Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 03:42:16 GMT
• Title: Towards Reliable Truth-Aligned Uncertainty Estimation in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Uncertainty estimation (UE) aims to detect hallucinated outputs of large language models (LLMs)<n>We formalise this phenomenon as proxy failure, since most UE metrics originate from model behaviour.<n>We propose Truth AnChoring (TAC), a post-hoc calibration method to remedy UE metrics.
• Score: 54.51264434040939
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Uncertainty estimation (UE) aims to detect hallucinated outputs of large language models (LLMs) to improve their reliability. However, UE metrics often exhibit unstable performance across configurations, which significantly limits their applicability. In this work, we formalise this phenomenon as proxy failure, since most UE metrics originate from model behaviour, rather than being explicitly grounded in the factual correctness of LLM outputs. With this, we show that UE metrics become non-discriminative precisely in low-information regimes. To alleviate this, we propose Truth AnChoring (TAC), a post-hoc calibration method to remedy UE metrics, by mapping the raw scores to truth-aligned scores. Even with noisy and few-shot supervision, our TAC can support the learning of well-calibrated uncertainty estimates, and presents a practical calibration protocol. Our findings highlight the limitations of treating heuristic UE metrics as direct indicators of truth uncertainty, and position our TAC as a necessary step toward more reliable uncertainty estimation for LLMs. The code repository is available at https://github.com/ponhvoan/TruthAnchor/.

Related papers

• Inference-Time Steering for Cross-Lingual Factual Consistency in LLMs [51.56484100374058]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual fluency, but their internal knowledge representations remain disproportionately biased toward high-resource languages.<n>We investigate whether these biases can be mitigated at inference time, forcing an English-prompted model to answer as if it were queried in target languages.<n>Experiments on Gemma 3 12B Instruct reveal persona prompting to be the strongest overall intervention, balancing efficacy, safety, and out-of-domain generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T16:15:05Z)
• Position: Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs is Just Unsupervised Clustering [8.56875523245176]
  Uncertainty Quantification is widely regarded as the primary safeguard for deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes domains.<n>We argue that the field suffers from a category error: mainstream UQ methods for LLMs are just unsupervised clustering algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T00:47:02Z)
• Efficient Epistemic Uncertainty Estimation for Large Language Models via Knowledge Distillation [8.883246421566243]
  Epistemic Uncertainty(EU) via Deep Ensembles is computationally prohibitive at the scale of modern models.<n>We propose a framework that leverages the small draft models to efficiently estimate token-level EU, bypassing the need for full-scale ensembling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T11:03:37Z)
• NAACL: Noise-AwAre Verbal Confidence Calibration for LLMs in RAG Systems [53.52419750390942]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used in mission-critical factual domains.<n>LLMs exhibit poor calibration performance due to noisy retrieved contexts.<n>We propose NAACL Rules (Noise-AwAre Confidence CaLibration Rules) to provide a principled foundation for resolving overconfidence under noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T05:38:25Z)
• Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations [49.84786015324238]
  Confidence estimation (CE) indicates how reliable the answers of large language models (LLMs) are, and can impact user trust and decision-making.<n>We present a comprehensive evaluation framework for CE that measures their confidence quality on three new aspects.<n>These include robustness of confidence against prompt perturbations, stability across semantic equivalent answers, and sensitivity to semantically different answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T23:16:50Z)
• Can Large Language Models Express Uncertainty Like Human? [71.27418419522884]
  We release the first diverse, large-scale dataset of hedging expressions with human-annotated confidence scores.<n>We conduct the first systematic study of linguistic confidence across modern large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T02:34:30Z)
• Can LLMs Detect Their Confabulations? Estimating Reliability in Uncertainty-Aware Language Models [24.72990207218907]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T16:12:36Z)
• Towards Harmonized Uncertainty Estimation for Large Language Models [22.58034272573749]
  It is essential to quantify the reliability of their generations through uncertainty estimation.<n>We propose CUE (Corrector for Uncertainty Estimation): A straightforward yet effective method that employs a lightweight model trained on data aligned with the target LLM's performance to adjust uncertainty scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T10:17:57Z)
• Why Uncertainty Estimation Methods Fall Short in RAG: An Axiomatic Analysis [15.553942864736989]
  Uncertainty Estimation (UE) quantifies the model's confidence and helps users assess response reliability.<n>This paper shows that current UE methods cannot reliably assess correctness in the Retrieval-Augmented Generation setting.<n>We propose an axiomatic framework to identify deficiencies in existing methods and guide the development of improved approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T11:47:42Z)
• ConU: Conformal Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Correctness Coverage Guarantees [68.33498595506941]
  We introduce a novel uncertainty measure based on self-consistency theory. We then develop a conformal uncertainty criterion by integrating the uncertainty condition aligned with correctness into the CP algorithm. Empirical evaluations indicate that our uncertainty measure outperforms prior state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-29T17:33:07Z)
• 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)

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.