Clustered Self-Assessment: LLM uncertainty quantification via semantic clustering and multiple-choice self-evaluation
A new arXiv preprint proposes Clustered Self-Assessment, a method for uncertainty quantification in LLMs that groups sampled generations into semantically distinct clusters, reformats them as multiple-choice options, and uses the model's own probability assignments as confidence estimates. The approach outperforms entropy-based baselines across multiple models and datasets, achieving competitive performance with as few as two additional samples. The method is notable for directly leveraging the model's self-assessment capability rather than relying on indirect distributional signals.
Related guides (2)
Related events (8)
Systematic Study of LLM Linguistic Uncertainty Markers and Intrinsic Confidence Calibration
This paper introduces 'marker internal confidence' (MIC) as a formalization of the intrinsic confidence a model associates with epistemic markers (e.g., 'it is likely...') in a given task domain. The authors present 7 metrics to evaluate MIC stability within and across distributions, finding that LLMs remain miscalibrated even under model-centric interpretation of marker meanings. Models struggle to differentiate markers by internal confidence across distributions, though they preserve a somewhat consistent ranking order across tasks. The work provides complementary evidence toward understanding faithful calibration in LLMs and highlights the need for more stable, aligned marker use.
Reverse Probing: Supervised Token-level Uncertainty Quantification for LLMs in Clinical Text
The paper introduces Reverse Probing, a novel uncertainty quantification framework designed specifically for clinical text summarization that estimates token-level uncertainty from pre-existing labeled summaries rather than sampling new outputs. It extracts uncertainty signals from four categories of internal model activations, treating text as a probe into the model's internal state. Evaluated on two expert-annotated clinical datasets, it outperforms eight adapted baselines on all metrics, achieving up to 4× higher AUPRC while reducing inference time and compute. Feature analysis identifies delta energy and neighborhood context as the most consistent predictors of uncertainty across models.
Benchmarking study finds LLMs fail at counterintuitive probability problems despite strong standard performance
A new arXiv paper evaluates 8 state-of-the-art LLMs on discrete probability problems using two datasets: standard exercises (average accuracy 0.96) and counterintuitive exercises designed to trigger heuristic reasoning (average accuracy 0.59). The authors document token bias causing 20%+ performance drops when canonical problem formulations are disguised, and up to 34% degradation when misleading suggestions are embedded in prompts. The findings argue that current LLMs are not genuine probabilistic reasoners despite their success on advanced math benchmarks.
LLMSurgeon: Post-Hoc Auditing of LLM Pretraining Data Mixtures
LLMSurgeon formalizes Data Mixture Surgery (DMS), a framework for estimating the domain-level distribution of an LLM's pretraining corpus using only generated text from the target model. The method casts DMS as an inverse problem under the label-shift assumption, using a calibrated soft confusion matrix to correct domain confusion and recover the latent mixture prior. The authors also introduce LLMScan, a verifiable evaluation suite built from open-source LLMs with known pretraining mixtures, on which LLMSurgeon demonstrates high-fidelity recovery of domain compositions without access to training data.
Mitigating Perceptual Judgment Bias in Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge via Perceptual Perturbation and Reward Modeling
This paper identifies and analyzes 'Perceptual Judgment Bias' in multimodal LLM judges, where models anchor on response text rather than visual evidence when the two conflict. The authors introduce a Perceptually Perturbed Judgment Dataset using counterfactual responses to isolate perceptual errors, and a training framework combining GRPO-based reward modeling with batch-ranking objectives. Experiments on MLLM-as-a-Judge benchmarks show improved perceptual fidelity, ranking coherence, and alignment with human evaluation.
Mechanistic analysis of how LLMs encode essay quality in internal representations
Researchers systematically probe the hidden representations of eight LLMs across three essay datasets (ASAP++, CSEE, ENEM) to understand how automated essay scoring (AES) works internally. Using linear probing, dimensionality reduction, and neuron-level analysis, they find essay quality is encoded in a linearly accessible form that emerges progressively across layers and partially transfers across prompts. Individual 'essay scoring neurons' are identified whose activations correlate with scores and respond to targeted interventions, with longer essays relying more on deeper layers. The work contributes to mechanistic interpretability of LLM-based scoring systems.
Three-axis uncertainty estimation framework for code generation outperforms NL-derived baselines
A new arXiv preprint argues that uncertainty estimation (UE) for code generation requires code-specific design rather than methods ported from natural language. The authors propose three orthogonal uncertainty axes—lexical (token entropy), algorithmic (pseudo-code consistency), and functional (behavioral consistency)—grounded in properties unique to code: token fragility, intent-code gap, and executability. Evaluated across five code LLMs, their ensemble improves average AUROC from 0.696 to 0.776 (+8.1 points) over the strongest NL-derived baseline, with a single-pass token entropy method on Qwen3-14B matching multi-pass baselines at 3x lower cost. The work is directly relevant to safe deployment of LLMs in agentic coding pipelines.
LLMs automate reproducibility assessments in social and behavioral sciences, outperforming human reanalysts
A preprint from arXiv demonstrates that an LLM pipeline can automate reproducibility assessments of published social and behavioral science studies, recovering original effect sizes in 41% of cases (vs. 34% for human reanalysts) and reaching the same qualitative conclusion in 96% of cases (vs. 74% for humans). The study evaluated 76 published studies with predefined claims. The results suggest LLMs could serve as a scalable tool for systematic auditing of empirical research, addressing the resource-intensive nature of traditional reproducibility efforts.