Calibrating Semantic Uncertainty from Observable Language-Model Probabilities
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17447v1
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:29:04 GMT
- Title: Calibrating Semantic Uncertainty from Observable Language-Model Probabilities
- Abstract summary: Language models produce probabilities over words, but professional decisions require uncertainty over meaningful states.<n>We introduce a semantic map: a prespecified, testable bridge from probabilities over verbal responses to probabilities over declared states.<n>We derive posterior-error bounds and conditions for existence, uniqueness, stability and sequential Bayesian updating.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Language models produce probabilities over words, but professional decisions require uncertainty over meaningful states such as diagnoses, hypotheses or operational conditions. A model's printed numerical confidence does not establish reliability. We introduce a semantic map: a prespecified, testable bridge from probabilities over verbal responses to probabilities over declared states, formulated as semiparametric inference for a finite-valued latent state. A reference model defines the target posterior, the language model supplies an unrestricted conditional distribution over verbal responses, and held-out calibration connects them. We derive posterior-error bounds and conditions for existence, uniqueness, stability and sequential Bayesian updating. Crucially, language probabilities depend on the prompt's lexical form, whereas the target posterior is unchanged by information-equivalent rewording. We test the method on professional market text compiled from Federal Reserve economic and financial series and on controlled simulations with exact posteriors. Across two fitted language models, language-derived probabilities outperform printed numerical probabilities, recover held-out posteriors with valid uncertainty coverage, remain largely stable under paraphrasing, and respond appropriately to altered evidence. The broader implication is that prompt engineering optimizes a wording-dependent response, whereas scientific and professional use requires validated stability of application-relevant meaning. The semantic map turns this general concern into a testable statistical problem and, when its acceptance conditions hold, yields an auditable posterior estimate. The same principle offers a template for auditing classifications, recommendations and other fluent responses that may conceal semantic instability.
Related papers
- Identification and Learning of Semantic Observation Kernels: Partial Observation, Uniform Recovery, & Minimax Limits [0.0]
We ask when an observable language law can support a reproducible posterior over declared states.<n>A semantic map groups meaning-equivalent continuations; held-out cases with reference posteriors identify a semiparametric inverse from grouped language probabilities to state probabilities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-07-25T10:14:58Z) - Sensitivity Uncertainty Alignment in Large Language Models [0.0]
We propose a framework for analyzing failures of large language models under adversarial and ambiguous inputs.<n>We define a scalar score, SUA_theta(x), capturing the difference between distributional sensitivity and predictive entropy.<n>We introduce SUA-TR, a training method combining consistency regularization and entropy alignment, along with an abstention rule for safer inference.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-04-21T17:53:12Z) - Trusted Uncertainty in Large Language Models: A Unified Framework for Confidence Calibration and Risk-Controlled Refusal [31.458406135473805]
We present UniCR, a unified framework that turns heterogeneous uncertainty evidence into a calibrated probability of correctness.<n>UniCR learns a lightweight calibration head with temperature scaling and proper scoring.<n>Experiments on short-form QA, code generation with execution tests, and retrieval-augmented long-form QA show consistent improvements in calibration metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-01T13:14:58Z) - COIN: Uncertainty-Guarding Selective Question Answering for Foundation Models with Provable Risk Guarantees [51.5976496056012]
COIN is an uncertainty-guarding selection framework that calibrates statistically valid thresholds to filter a single generated answer per question.<n>COIN estimates the empirical error rate on a calibration set and applies confidence interval methods to establish a high-probability upper bound on the true error rate.<n>We demonstrate COIN's robustness in risk control, strong test-time power in retaining admissible answers, and predictive efficiency under limited calibration data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-06-25T07:04:49Z) - Conformal Linguistic Calibration: Trading-off between Factuality and Specificity [41.45862052156885]
We present a framework connecting abstention and linguistic calibration through the lens of linguistic pragmatics.<n>Results demonstrate our method produces calibrated outputs with conformal guarantees on factual accuracy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-26T13:01:49Z) - Variability Need Not Imply Error: The Case of Adequate but Semantically Distinct Responses [7.581259361859477]
Uncertainty quantification tools can be used to reject a response when the model is uncertain'<n>We estimate the Probability the model assigns to Adequate Responses (PROBAR)<n>We find PROBAR to outperform semantic entropy across prompts with varying degrees of ambiguity/open-endedness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-20T09:02:26Z) - 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) - Calibrating Neural Simulation-Based Inference with Differentiable
Coverage Probability [50.44439018155837]
We propose to include a calibration term directly into the training objective of the neural model.
By introducing a relaxation of the classical formulation of calibration error we enable end-to-end backpropagation.
It is directly applicable to existing computational pipelines allowing reliable black-box posterior inference.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-20T10:20:45Z) - When Does Confidence-Based Cascade Deferral Suffice? [69.28314307469381]
Cascades are a classical strategy to enable inference cost to vary adaptively across samples.
A deferral rule determines whether to invoke the next classifier in the sequence, or to terminate prediction.
Despite being oblivious to the structure of the cascade, confidence-based deferral often works remarkably well in practice.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-06T04:13:57Z) - The Implicit Delta Method [61.36121543728134]
In this paper, we propose an alternative, the implicit delta method, which works by infinitesimally regularizing the training loss of uncertainty.
We show that the change in the evaluation due to regularization is consistent for the variance of the evaluation estimator, even when the infinitesimal change is approximated by a finite difference.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-11T19:34:17Z) - Dense Uncertainty Estimation via an Ensemble-based Conditional Latent
Variable Model [68.34559610536614]
We argue that the aleatoric uncertainty is an inherent attribute of the data and can only be correctly estimated with an unbiased oracle model.
We propose a new sampling and selection strategy at train time to approximate the oracle model for aleatoric uncertainty estimation.
Our results show that our solution achieves both accurate deterministic results and reliable uncertainty estimation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-11-22T08:54:10Z)
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.