This study evaluated self-reported response certainty across several large language models (GPT, Claude, Llama, Phi, Mistral, Gemini, Gemma, and Qwen) using 300 gastroenterology board-style questions. The highest-performing models (GPT-o1 preview, GPT-4o, and Claude-3.5-Sonnet) achieved Brier scores of 0.15-0.2 and AUROC of 0.6. Although newer models demonstrated improved performance, all exhibited a consistent tendency towards overconfidence. Uncertainty estimation presents a significant challenge to the safe use of LLMs in healthcare. Keywords: Large Language Models; Confidence Elicitation; Artificial Intelligence; Gastroenterology; Uncertainty Quantification

Expressing confidence is challenging for embodied agents navigating dynamic multimodal environments, where uncertainty arises from both perception and decision-making processes. We present the first work investigating embodied confidence elicitation in open-ended multimodal environments. We introduce Elicitation Policies, which structure confidence assessment across inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning, along with Execution Policies, which enhance confidence calibration through scenario reinterpretation, action sampling, and hypothetical reasoning. Evaluating agents in calibration and failure prediction tasks within the Minecraft environment, we show that structured reasoning approaches, such as Chain-of-Thoughts, improve confidence calibration. However, our findings also reveal persistent challenges in distinguishing uncertainty, particularly under abductive settings, underscoring the need for more sophisticated embodied confidence elicitation methods.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit misaligned confidence scores, usually overestimating the reliability of their predictions. While verbalized confidence in Large Language Models (LLMs) has gained attention, prior work remains divided on whether confidence scores can be systematically steered through prompting. Recent studies even argue that such prompt-induced confidence shifts are negligible, suggesting LLMs' confidence calibration is rigid to linguistic interventions. Contrary to these claims, we first rigorously confirm the existence of directional confidence shifts by probing three models (including GPT3.5, LLAMA3-70b, GPT4) across 7 benchmarks, demonstrating that explicit instructions can inflate or deflate confidence scores in a regulated manner. Based on this observation, we propose a novel framework containing three components: confidence steering, steered confidence aggregation and steered answers selection, named SteeringConf. Our method, SteeringConf, leverages a confidence manipulation mechanism to steer the confidence scores of LLMs in several desired directions, followed by a summarization module that aggregates the steered confidence scores to produce a final prediction. We evaluate our method on 7 benchmarks and it consistently outperforms the baselines in terms of calibration metrics in task of confidence calibration and failure detection.

A fundamental issue in deep learning has been adversarial robustness. As these systems have scaled, such issues have persisted. Currently, large language models (LLMs) with billions of parameters suffer from adversarial attacks just like their earlier, smaller counterparts. However, the threat models have changed. Previously, having gray-box access, where input embeddings or output logits/probabilities were visible to the user, might have been reasonable. However, with the introduction of closed-source models, no information about the model is available apart from the generated output. This means that current black-box attacks can only utilize the final prediction to detect if an attack is successful. In this work, we investigate and demonstrate the potential of attack guidance, akin to using output probabilities, while having only black-box access in a classification setting. This is achieved through the ability to elicit confidence from the model. We empirically show that the elicited confidence is calibrated and not hallucinated for current LLMs. By minimizing the elicited confidence, we can therefore increase the likelihood of misclassification. Our new proposed paradigm demonstrates promising state-of-the-art results on three datasets across two models (LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct and Mistral-7B-Instruct-V0.3) when comparing our technique to existing hard-label black-box attack methods that introduce word-level substitutions.

The tool-use ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) has a profound impact on a wide range of industrial applications. However, LLMs' self-control and calibration capability in appropriately using tools remains understudied. The problem is consequential as it raises potential risks of degraded performance and poses a threat to the trustworthiness of the models. In this paper, we conduct a study on a family of state-of-the-art LLMs on three datasets with two mainstream tool-use frameworks. Our study reveals the tool-abuse behavior of LLMs, a tendency for models to misuse tools with overconfidence. We also find that this is a common issue regardless of model capability. Accordingly, we propose a novel approach, \textit{SMARTCAL}, to mitigate the observed issues, and our results show an average of 8.6 percent increase in the QA performance and a 21.6 percent decrease in Expected Calibration Error (ECE) compared to baseline models.

Large Language Models have emerged as prime candidates to tackle misinformation mitigation. However, existing approaches struggle with hallucinations and overconfident predictions. We propose an uncertainty quantification framework that leverages both direct confidence elicitation and sampled-based consistency methods to provide better calibration for NLP misinformation mitigation solutions. We first investigate the calibration of sample-based consistency methods that exploit distinct features of consistency across sample sizes and stochastic levels. Next, we evaluate the performance and distributional shift of a robust numeric verbalization prompt across single vs. two-step confidence elicitation procedure. We also compare the performance of the same prompt with different versions of GPT and different numerical scales. Finally, we combine the sample-based consistency and verbalized methods to propose a hybrid framework that yields a better uncertainty estimation for GPT models. Overall, our work proposes novel uncertainty quantification methods that will improve the reliability of Large Language Models in misinformation mitigation applications.

The task of empowering large language models (LLMs) to accurately express their confidence, referred to as confidence elicitation, is essential in ensuring reliable and trustworthy decision-making processes. Previous methods, which primarily rely on model logits, have become less suitable for LLMs and even infeasible with the rise of closed-source LLMs (e.g., commercialized LLM APIs). This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of \emph{non-logit-based} approaches to estimate the uncertainty of LLMs. Hence, in this study, we investigate approaches for confidence elicitation that do not require model fine-tuning or access to proprietary information. We introduce three categories of methods: verbalize-based, consistency-based, and their hybrid methods for benchmarking, and evaluate their performance across five types of datasets and four widely-used LLMs. Our analysis of these methods uncovers several key insights: 1) LLMs often exhibit a high degree of overconfidence when verbalizing their confidence; 2) Prompting strategies such as CoT, Top-K and Multi-step confidences improve calibration of verbalized confidence; 3) Consistency-based methods outperform the verbalized confidences in most cases, with particularly notable improvements on the arithmetic reasoning task; 4) Hybrid methods consistently deliver the best performance over their baselines, thereby emerging as a promising state-of-the-art approach; 5) Despite these advancements, all investigated methods continue to struggle with challenging tasks, such as those requiring professional knowledge, leaving significant scope for improvement of confidence elicitation.