Zhen Lin

Xiaoou Liu, Tiejin Chen, Longchao Da et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text generation, reasoning, and decision-making, enabling their adoption in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, and transportation. However, their reliability is a major concern, as they often produce plausible but incorrect responses. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) enhances trustworthiness by estimating confidence in outputs, enabling risk mitigation and selective prediction. However, traditional UQ methods struggle with LLMs due to computational constraints and decoding inconsistencies. Moreover, LLMs introduce unique uncertainty sources, such as input ambiguity, reasoning path divergence, and decoding stochasticity, that extend beyond classical aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. To address this, we introduce a new taxonomy that categorizes UQ methods based on computational efficiency and uncertainty dimensions (input, reasoning, parameter, and prediction uncertainty). We evaluate existing techniques, assess their real-world applicability, and identify open challenges, emphasizing the need for scalable, interpretable, and robust UQ approaches to enhance LLM reliability.

Xiaoou Liu, Zhen Lin, Longchao Da et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) require robust confidence estimation, particularly in critical domains like healthcare and law where unreliable outputs can lead to significant consequences. Despite much recent work in confidence estimation, current evaluation frameworks rely on correctness functions -- various heuristics that are often noisy, expensive, and possibly introduce systematic biases. These methodological weaknesses tend to distort evaluation metrics and thus the comparative ranking of confidence measures. We introduce MCQA-Eval, an evaluation framework for assessing confidence measures in Natural Language Generation (NLG) that eliminates dependence on an explicit correctness function by leveraging gold-standard correctness labels from multiple-choice datasets. MCQA-Eval enables systematic comparison of both internal state-based white-box (e.g. logit-based) and consistency-based black-box confidence measures, providing a unified evaluation methodology across different approaches. Through extensive experiments on multiple LLMs and widely used QA datasets, we report that MCQA-Eval provides efficient and more reliable assessments of confidence estimation methods than existing approaches.

Zhen Lin, Nicholas Huang, Camille Avestruz et al.

Galaxy clusters identified from the Sunyaev Zel'dovich (SZ) effect are a key ingredient in multi-wavelength cluster-based cosmology. We present a comparison between two methods of cluster identification: the standard Matched Filter (MF) method in SZ cluster finding and a method using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). We further implement and show results for a `combined' identifier. We apply the methods to simulated millimeter maps for several observing frequencies for an SPT-3G-like survey. There are some key differences between the methods. The MF method requires image pre-processing to remove point sources and a model for the noise, while the CNN method requires very little pre-processing of images. Additionally, the CNN requires tuning of hyperparameters in the model and takes as input, cutout images of the sky. Specifically, we use the CNN to classify whether or not an 8 arcmin $\times$ 8 arcmin cutout of the sky contains a cluster. We compare differences in purity and completeness. The MF signal-to-noise ratio depends on both mass and redshift. Our CNN, trained for a given mass threshold, captures a different set of clusters than the MF, some of which have SNR below the MF detection threshold. However, the CNN tends to mis-classify cutouts whose clusters are located near the edge of the cutout, which can be mitigated with staggered cutouts. We leverage the complementarity of the two methods, combining the scores from each method for identification. The purity and completeness of the MF alone are both 0.61, assuming a standard detection threshold. The purity and completeness of the CNN alone are 0.59 and 0.61. The combined classification method yields 0.60 and 0.77, a significant increase for completeness with a modest decrease in purity. We advocate for combined methods that increase the confidence of many lower signal-to-noise clusters.