Daryl Watson

Kyle Moore, Jesse Roberts, Daryl Watson et al.

Uncertainty Quantification is a large and growing subfield of large language model behavioral analysis. Primarily to recognize and combat hallucination, the field has largely focused on measuring and improving calibration, the accuracy of uncertainty judgments to task efficacy. In this work, we investigate the relatively underexplored question of how similar large language model uncertainty is to human uncertainty. We investigate the presence and strength of human-similar uncertainty signals, deemed uncertainty alignment, in large language model overt behavior and internal activation patterns. We identify whether the models show evidence of simultaneous alignment and calibration on a variety of datasets covering both multiple choice and open ended factual recall. And we characterize the effect of instruct fine-tuning on each of these facets.

Kyle Moore, Jesse Roberts, Daryl Watson et al.

Recent work has sought to quantify large language model uncertainty to facilitate model control and modulate user trust. Previous works focus on measures of uncertainty that are theoretically grounded or reflect the average overt behavior of the model. In this work, we investigate a variety of uncertainty measures, in order to identify measures that correlate with human group-level uncertainty. We find that Bayesian measures and a variation on entropy measures, top-k entropy, tend to agree with human behavior as a function of model size. We find that some strong measures decrease in human-similarity with model size, but, by multiple linear regression, we find that combining multiple uncertainty measures provide comparable human-alignment with reduced size-dependency.

Kyle Moore, Jesse Roberts, Daryl Watson

There has been much recent interest in evaluating large language models for uncertainty calibration to facilitate model control and modulate user trust. Inference time uncertainty, which may provide a real-time signal to the model or external control modules, is particularly important for applying these concepts to improve LLM-user experience in practice. While many of the existing papers consider model calibration, comparatively little work has sought to evaluate how closely model uncertainty aligns to human uncertainty. In this work, we evaluate a collection of inference-time uncertainty measures, using both established metrics and novel variations, to determine how closely they align with both human group-level uncertainty and traditional notions of model calibration. We find that numerous measures show evidence of strong alignment to human uncertainty, even despite the lack of alignment to human answer preference. For those successful metrics, we find moderate to strong evidence of model calibration in terms of both correctness correlation and distributional analysis.