Victor Wang

Siddhant Ray, Ganesh Ananthanarayanan, Kevin Chian et al.

Email importance labeling has long been a critical yet challenging problem for businesses and individuals. Traditional approaches; such as keyword matching, user-defined rules, and sender-based heuristics; demand extensive manual feature engineering and fail to scale effectively or generalize. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong potential and a natural fit for this task, offering deep contextual understanding and superior labeling quality. However, using LLM models like GPT-4.1 at enterprise email volumes incurs prohibitive computational costs and hinders real-world deployment. We explore the trade-off space of using alternative labeling schemes as opposed to GPT4.1 scale LLMs, with the goal of achieving near GPT level labeling quality with significantly lower cost. We develop Argo, an enterprise email labeling framework, where we construct a profiler to efficiently search the cost quality trade-off space of labeling and identify cost-efficient alternatives to labeling emails. Additionally, we design an on-demand provisioning scheme to intelligently scale Argo with real time load, to minimize cost increases during peak load inference. Over 3 open-source email datasets, Argo achieves 148-167X inference cost reduction with negligible quality degradation and 20-640000X lower profiling costs, making large-scale, context-aware email labeling practical for enterprises.

Victor Wang, Elias Stengel-Eskin

Calibrated confidence estimates are necessary for large language model (LLM) outputs to be trusted by human users. While LLMs can express their confidence in human-interpretable ways, verbalized LLM-generated confidence scores have empirically been found to be miscalibrated, reporting high confidence on instances with low accuracy and thereby harming trust and safety. We hypothesize that this overconfidence often stems from a given LLM's heightened suggestibility when faced with claims that it encodes little information about; we empirically validate this hypothesis, finding more suggestibility on lower-accuracy claims. Building on this finding, we introduce Distractor-Normalized Coherence (DINCO), which estimates and accounts for an LLM's suggestibility bias by having the model verbalize its confidence independently across several self-generated distractors (i.e. alternative claims), and normalizes by the total verbalized confidence. To further improve calibration, we leverage generator-validator disagreement, augmenting normalized validator confidence with a consistency-based estimate of generator confidence. Here, we frame the popular approach of self-consistency as leveraging coherence across sampled generations, and normalized verbalized confidence as leveraging coherence across validations on incompatible claims, allowing us to integrate these complementary dimensions of coherence into DINCO. Moreover, our analysis shows that DINCO provides less saturated -- and therefore more usable -- confidence estimates, and that further sampling alone cannot close the gap between DINCO and baselines, with DINCO at 10 inference calls outperforming self-consistency at 100.