Modeling Memory-Dependent Reliability of LLMs: A Hidden Markov Model

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22951v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 23:34:40 GMT
• Title: Modeling Memory-Dependent Reliability of LLMs: A Hidden Markov Model
• Abstract summary: Reliability assessment of large language models (LLMs) seeks to estimate the probability that a model produces correct responses.<n>We introduce a Hidden Markov Model to capture sequential dependence in benchmark-constructed interaction sessions.<n>The results suggest that ignoring sequential dependence may lead to overconfident reliability estimates.
• Score: 3.294954749518474
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reliability assessment of large language models (LLMs) seeks to estimate the probability that a model produces correct responses under a specified operational profile. Conventional benchmark-based evaluation, often summarized by aggregate accuracy, provides a point estimate of performance but does not characterize the uncertainty associated with reliability claims. Currently, statistical inference methods for LLM reliability assessment are emerging. However, a key assumption underlying these models is that test outcomes can be treated as independent repeated trials. This assumption may be inappropriate in sequential settings, where later responses depend on earlier interactions through retained context, error propagation, or an evolving interaction state. We extend a hierarchical Bayesian framework for LLM reliability assessment by relaxing the assumption of independent task outcomes and introducing a Hidden Markov Model to capture sequential dependence in benchmark-constructed interaction sessions. In this formulation, outcomes are generated from a latent interaction state evolving according to a first-order Markov process, capturing changes in interaction context. Through experiments using Anthropic Claude and OpenAI on four datasets, we demonstrate the potential impact of sequential dependence on reliability assessment. The results suggest that ignoring sequential dependence may lead to overconfident reliability estimates.

Related papers

• Latent Confidence Alignment for LLM Self-Assessment [8.73168195475753]
  We propose a Rasch model-based latent ability framework and a metacognitive perspective to measure the consistency between model self-assessment and the latent error probability implied by model ability and item difficulty.<n> Experiments on a medical-domain dataset with 20 models show that the proposed approach improves self-assessment quality without affecting model ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T08:13:31Z)
• Joint Model and Data Sparsification via the Marginal Likelihood [53.29070892356214]
  We propose jointly learning individual feature and sample relevancies, enabling simultaneous model and data sparsification.<n>This symmetric pruning of model and data offers a natural extension that preserves conjugacy.<n> Empirical results across diverse regression tasks affirm that a joint ARD approach consistently yields both sparse and robust prediction models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T13:26:53Z)
• Confidence Estimation in Automatic Short Answer Grading with LLMs [0.0]
  Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) with generative large language models (LLMs) has recently demonstrated strong performance without task-specific fine-tuning.<n>LLMs-based grading remains imperfect, making reliable confidence estimates essential for safe and effective human-AI collaboration.<n>We propose a hybrid confidence framework that integrates model-based confidence signals with an explicit estimate of dataset-derived aleatoric uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T20:26:10Z)
• Quantifying Aleatoric Uncertainty of In-Context Learning for Robust Measure of LLM Prediction Confidence [6.28866496877782]
  In-Context Learning (ICL) allows LLMs to adapt to new tasks from a few demonstrations, but its reliability remains a concern.<n>We introduce a concept of self-function vectors, built upon Bayesian views and the mechanistic interpretability of ICL.<n>These vectors leverage internal model representations to model the latent concept learned during in-context prompting.<n>We show that our proposed methodology can measure uncertainty of LLM predictions more reliably than existing alternative methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T09:47:40Z)
• Stage-Adaptive Reliability Modeling for Continuous Valence-Arousal Estimation [11.761508894410182]
  We propose a Stage-Adaptive reliability modeling framework that explicitly estimates and calibrates modality-wise confidence during multimodal integration.<n>SAGE introduces a reliability-aware fusion mechanism that dynamically rebalances audio and visual representations according to their stage-dependent informativeness.<n>Experiments on the Aff-Wild2 benchmark demonstrate that SAGE consistently improves concordance correlation coefficient scores compared with existing multimodal fusion approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T02:45:41Z)
• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• STAR : Bridging Statistical and Agentic Reasoning for Large Model Performance Prediction [78.0692157478247]
  We propose STAR, a framework that bridges data-driven STatistical expectations with knowledge-driven Agentic Reasoning.<n>We show that STAR consistently outperforms all baselines on both score-based and rank-based metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T16:30:07Z)
• Reference-Specific Unlearning Metrics Can Hide the Truth: A Reality Check [60.77691669644931]
  We propose Functional Alignment for Distributional Equivalence (FADE), a novel metric that measures distributional similarity between unlearned and reference models.<n>We show that FADE captures functional alignment across the entire output distribution, providing a principled assessment of genuine unlearning.<n>These findings expose fundamental gaps in current evaluation practices and demonstrate that FADE provides a more robust foundation for developing and assessing truly effective unlearning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T20:50:30Z)
• 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)
• Aurora: Are Android Malware Classifiers Reliable and Stable under Distribution Shift? [51.12297424766236]
  AURORA is a framework to evaluate malware classifiers based on their confidence quality and operational resilience.<n>AURORA is complemented by a set of metrics designed to go beyond point-in-time performance.<n>The fragility in SOTA frameworks across datasets of varying drift suggests the need for a return to the whiteboard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T20:22:43Z)
• 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.