We explore uncertainty quantification in large language models (LLMs), with the goal to identify when uncertainty in responses given a query is large. We simultaneously consider both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties, where the former comes from the lack of knowledge about the ground truth (such as about facts or the language), and the latter comes from irreducible randomness (such as multiple possible answers). In particular, we derive an information-theoretic metric that allows to reliably detect when only epistemic uncertainty is large, in which case the output of the model is unreliable. This condition can be computed based solely on the output of the model obtained simply by some special iterative prompting based on the previous responses. Such quantification, for instance, allows to detect hallucinations (cases when epistemic uncertainty is high) in both single-and multi-answer responses. This is in contrast to many standard uncertainty quantification strategies (such as thresholding the log-likelihood of a response) where hallucinations in the multi-answer case cannot be detected. We conduct a series of experiments which demonstrate the advantage of our formulation. Further, our investigations shed some light on how the probabilities assigned to a given output by an LLM can be amplified by iterative prompting, which might be of independent interest.

Recent advances in reasoning with large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on complex mathematical tasks, including combinatorial optimization. Techniques such as Chain-of-Thought and In-Context Learning have further enhanced this capability, making LLMs both powerful and accessible tools for a wide range of users, including non-experts. However, applying LLMs to matching problems, which require reasoning under preferential and structural constraints, remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a novel benchmark of 369 instances of the College Admission Problem, a canonical example of a matching problem with preferences, to evaluate LLMs across key dimensions: feasibility, stability, and optimality. We employ this benchmark to assess the performance of several open-weight LLMs. Our results first reveal that while LLMs can satisfy certain constraints, they struggle to meet all evaluation criteria consistently. They also show that reasoning LLMs, like QwQ and GPT-oss, significantly outperform traditional models such as Llama, Qwen or Mistral, defined here as models used without any dedicated reasoning mechanisms. Moreover, we observed that LLMs reacted differently to the various prompting strategies tested, which include Chain-of-Thought, In-Context Learning and role-based prompting, with no prompt consistently offering the best performance. Finally, we report the performances from iterative prompting with auto-generated feedback and show that they are not monotonic; they can peak early and then significantly decline in later attempts. Overall, this work offers a new perspective on model reasoning performance and the effectiveness of prompting strategies in combinatorial optimization problems with preferential constraints.

We explore uncertainty quantification in large language models (LLMs), with the goal to identify when uncertainty in responses given a query is large. We simultaneously consider both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties, where the former comes from the lack of knowledge about the ground truth (such as about facts or the language), and the latter comes from irreducible randomness (such as multiple possible answers). In particular, we derive an information-theoretic metric that allows to reliably detect when only epistemic uncertainty is large, in which case the output of the model is unreliable. This condition can be computed based solely on the output of the model obtained simply by some special iterative prompting based on the previous responses. Such quantification, for instance, allows to detect hallucinations (cases when epistemic uncertainty is high) in both single- and multi-answer responses.

Large language models (LLMs) are designed to align with human values in their responses. This study exploits LLMs with an iterative prompting technique where each prompt is systematically modified and refined across multiple iter ations to enhance its effectiveness in jailbreaking attacks progressively . This technique involves analyzing the response patterns of LLMs, including GPT - 3.5, GPT - 4, LLaMa2, Vicuna, and ChatGLM, allowing us to adjust and optimize prompts to evade the LLMs' ethical and security constraints. Persuasion strategies enhance prompt effectiveness while maintaining consistency with malicious intent. Our results show that the attack success rates (ASR) increase as the attacking prompts become more refined with the h ighest ASR of 90% for GPT4 and ChatGLMa and the lowest ASR of 68% for LLaMa2. Our technique outperforms baseline techniques (PAIR and PAP) in ASR and shows comparable performance with GCG and ArtPrompt.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various real-world tasks. However, they often struggle to fully comprehend and effectively utilize their input contexts, resulting in responses that are unfaithful or hallucinated. This difficulty increases for contexts that are long or contain distracting information, which can divert LLMs from fully capturing essential evidence. To address this issue, many works use prompting to help LLMs utilize contextual information more faithfully. For instance, iterative prompting highlights key information in two steps that first ask the LLM to identify important pieces of context and then derive answers accordingly. However, prompting methods are constrained to highlighting key information implicitly in token space, which is often insufficient to fully steer the model's attention. To improve model faithfulness more reliably, we propose AutoPASTA, a method that automatically identifies key contextual information and explicitly highlights it by steering an LLM's attention scores. Like prompting, AutoPASTA is applied at inference time and does not require changing any model parameters. Our experiments on open-book QA demonstrate that AutoPASTA effectively enables models to grasp essential contextual information, leading to substantially improved model faithfulness and performance, e.g., an average improvement of 7.95% for LLAMA3-70B-Instruct. Code will be publicly available at https://github.com/QingruZhang/AutoPASTA .

The advent and rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a profound shift in the artificial intelligence landscape [1, 2]. These models, distinguished by their significant learning capabilities, have demonstrated exceptional aptitude in generating coherent and contextually relevant text[3]. This prowess has rendered them invaluable across diverse sectors, including finance, healthcare, and autonomous systems, revolutionizing conventional approaches to tasks in these domains [4-7]. Nevertheless, the advent of LLMs into various societal aspects has also heightened the scrutiny of their reliability, especially the integrity of their generated content [8]. Amidst their impressive feats, LLMs' consistency in delivering accurate and verifiable information remains a pertinent concern [9, 10]. Instances of models producing misleading information or showcasing unwarranted confidence in incorrect outputs have underscored the imperative for ensuring the veracity of LLM outputs, notably in critical sectors where precision and factual accuracy are non-negotiable [11]. The phenomenon of "hallucination," wherein models fabricate information, has catalyzed the urgency to amplify the truthfulness of LLMs, positioning it as a pivotal research focus with substantial implications on future model refinement and application [12].

There has been considerable divergence of opinion on the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). While the initial optimism that reasoning might emerge automatically with scale has been tempered thanks to a slew of counterexamples, a wide spread belief in their iterative self-critique capabilities persists. In this paper, we set out to systematically investigate the effectiveness of iterative prompting of LLMs in the context of Graph Coloring, a canonical NP-complete reasoning problem that is related to propositional satisfiability as well as practical problems like scheduling and allocation. We present a principled empirical study of the performance of GPT4 in solving graph coloring instances or verifying the correctness of candidate colorings. In iterative modes, we experiment with the model critiquing its own answers and an external correct reasoner verifying proposed solutions. In both cases, we analyze whether the content of the criticisms actually affects bottom line performance. The study seems to indicate that (i) LLMs are bad at solving graph coloring instances (ii) they are no better at verifying a solution--and thus are not effective in iterative modes with LLMs critiquing LLM-generated solutions (iii) the correctness and content of the criticisms--whether by LLMs or external solvers--seems largely irrelevant to the performance of iterative prompting. We show that the observed increase in effectiveness is largely due to the correct solution being fortuitously present in the top-k completions of the prompt (and being recognized as such by an external verifier). Our results thus call into question claims about the self-critiquing capabilities of state of the art LLMs.