Abstract:Empowering large language models to accurately express confidence in their answers is essential for trustworthy decision-making. Previous confidence elicitation methods, which primarily rely on white-box access to internal model information or model fine-tuning, have become less suitable for LLMs, especially closed-source commercial APIs. This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of black-box approaches for LLM uncertainty estimation. To better break down the problem, we define a systematic framework with three components: prompting strategies for eliciting verbalized confidence, sampling methods for generating multiple responses, and aggregation techniques for computing consistency. We then benchmark these methods on two key tasks-confidence calibration and failure prediction-across five types of datasets (e.g., commonsense and arithmetic reasoning) and five widely-used LLMs including GPT-4 and LLaMA 2 Chat. Our analysis uncovers several key insights: 1) LLMs, when verbalizing their confidence, tend to be overconfident, potentially imitating human patterns of expressing confidence. 2) As model capability scales up, both calibration and failure prediction performance improve. 3) Employing our proposed strategies, such as human-inspired prompts, consistency among multiple responses, and better aggregation strategies can help mitigate this overconfidence from various perspectives. 4) Comparisons with white-box methods indicate that while white-box methods perform better, the gap is narrow, e.g., 0.522 to 0.605 in AUROC. Despite these advancements, none of these techniques consistently outperform others, and all investigated methods struggle in challenging tasks, such as those requiring professional knowledge, indicating significant scope for improvement. We believe this study can serve as a strong baseline and provide insights for eliciting confidence in black-box LLMs.

ClimateX: Do LLMs Accurately Assess Human Expert Confidence in Climate Statements?

Assessing Large Language Models on Climate Information

Climate Change from Large Language Models

Factual Confidence of LLMs: on Reliability and Robustness of Current Estimators

Can Large Language Models Capture Public Opinion about Global Warming? An Empirical Assessment of Algorithmic Fidelity and Bias

TruthEval: A Dataset to Evaluate LLM Truthfulness and Reliability

Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs

Enhancing Large Language Models with Climate Resources

Can Unconfident LLM Annotations Be Used for Confident Conclusions?

Automated Fact-Checking of Climate Change Claims with Large Language Models

Unlearning Climate Misinformation in Large Language Models

Exploring Large Language Models for Climate Forecasting

Can LLMs replace Neil deGrasse Tyson? Evaluating the Reliability of LLMs as Science Communicators

Limitations of the LLM-as-a-Judge Approach for Evaluating LLM Outputs in Expert Knowledge Tasks

Large Language Model Confidence Estimation via Black-Box Access

The Calibration Gap between Model and Human Confidence in Large Language Models

Epistemic Integrity in Large Language Models

The Confidence-Competence Gap in Large Language Models: A Cognitive Study

Social Science Meets LLMs: How Reliable Are Large Language Models in Social Simulations?

Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs

Do Large Language Models Exhibit Cognitive Dissonance? Studying the Difference Between Revealed Beliefs and Stated Answers