aleatoric uncertainty

In-context learning has emerged as a ground-breaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) and revolutionized various fields by providing a few task-relevant demonstrations in the prompt. However, trustworthy issues with LLM’s response, such as hallucination, have also been actively discussed. Existing works have been devoted to quantifying the uncertainty in LLM’s response, but they often overlook the complex nature of LLMs and the uniqueness of in-context learning. In this work, we delve into the predictive uncertainty of LLMs associated with in-context learning, highlighting that such uncertainties may stem from both the provided demonstrations (aleatoric uncertainty) and ambiguities tied to the model’s configurations (epistemic uncertainty). We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion. Extensive experiments are conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the decomposition. The code and data are available at: https://github.com/lingchen0331/UQ_ICL.

Uncertainty estimation (UE) of model predictions is a crucial step for a variety of tasks such as active learning, misclassification detection, adversarial attack detection, out-of-distribution detection, etc. Most of the works on modeling the uncertainty of deep neural networks evaluate these methods on image classification tasks. Little attention has been paid to UE in natural language processing. To fill this gap, we perform a vast empirical investigation of state-of-the-art UE methods for Transformer models on misclassification detection in named entity recognition and text classification tasks and propose two computationally efficient modifications, one of which approaches or even outperforms computationally intensive methods1.

Uncertainty decomposition refers to the task of decomposing the total uncertainty of a predictive model into aleatoric (data) uncertainty, resulting from inherent randomness in the data-generating process, and epistemic (model) uncertainty, resulting from missing information in the model’s training data. In large language models (LLMs) specifically, identifying sources of uncertainty is an important step toward improving reliability, trustworthiness, and interpretability, but remains an important open research question. In this paper, we introduce an uncertainty decomposition framework for LLMs, called input clarification ensembling, which can be applied to any pre-trained LLM. Our approach generates a set of clarifications for the input, feeds them into an LLM, and ensembles the corresponding predictions. We show that, when aleatoric uncertainty arises from ambiguity or under-specification in LLM inputs, this approach makes it possible to factor an (un-clarified) LLM’s predictions into separate aleatoric and epistemic terms, using a decomposition similar to the one employed by Bayesian neural networks. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that input clarification ensembling provides accurate and reliable uncertainty quantification on several language processing tasks. Code and data are available at https://github.com/UCSB-NLP-Chang/llm_uncertainty.

In safety-critical applications, language models should be able to characterize their uncertainty with meaningful probabilities. Many uncertainty quantification approaches require supervised data; however, finding suitable unseen challenging data is increasingly difficult for large language models trained on vast amounts of scraped data. If the model is consistently (and correctly) confident in its predictions, the uncertainty quantification method may consistently overestimate confidence on new and unfamiliar data. Finding data which exhibits enough uncertainty to train supervised uncertainty quantification methods for high-performance models may therefore be challenging, and will increase in difficulty as LLMs saturate datasets. To address this issue, we first introduce the problem of inducing artificial uncertainty in language models, then investigate methods of inducing artificial uncertainty on trivially easy data in the absence of challenging data at training time. We use probes trained to recognize artificial uncertainty on the original model, and find that these probes trained on artificial uncertainty outperform probes trained without artificial uncertainty in recognizing real uncertainty, achieving notably higher calibration on hard data with minimal loss of performance on easy data.

We posit that large language models (LLMs) should be capable of expressing their intrinsic uncertainty in natural language. For example, if the LLM is equally likely to output two contradicting answers to the same question, then its generated response should reflect this uncertainty by hedging its answer (e.g., “I’m not sure, but I think…”). We formalize faithful response uncertainty based on the gap between the model’s intrinsic confidence in the assertions it makes and the decisiveness by which they are conveyed. This example-level metric reliably indicates whether the model reflects its uncertainty, as it penalizes both excessive and insufficient hedging. We evaluate a variety of aligned LLMs at faithfully communicating uncertainty on several knowledge-intensive question answering tasks. Our results provide strong evidence that modern LLMs are poor at faithfully conveying their uncertainty, and that better alignment is necessary to improve their trustworthiness.

The notion of uncertainty is of major importance in machine learning and constitutes a key element of machine learning methodology. In line with the statistical tradition, uncertainty has long been perceived as almost synonymous with standard probability and probabilistic predictions. Yet, due to the steadily increasing relevance of machine learning for practical applications and related issues such as safety requirements, new problems and challenges have recently been identified by machine learning scholars, and these problems may call for new methodological developments. In particular, this includes the importance of distinguishing between (at least) two different types of uncertainty, often referred to as aleatoric and epistemic. In this paper, we provide an introduction to the topic of uncertainty in machine learning as well as an overview of attempts so far at handling uncertainty in general and formalizing this distinction in particular.

There are two major types of uncertainty one can model. Aleatoric uncertainty captures noise inherent in the observations. On the other hand, epistemic uncertainty accounts for uncertainty in the model -- uncertainty which can be explained away given enough data. Traditionally it has been difficult to model epistemic uncertainty in computer vision, but with new Bayesian deep learning tools this is now possible. We study the benefits of modeling epistemic vs. aleatoric uncertainty in Bayesian deep learning models for vision tasks. For this we present a Bayesian deep learning framework combining input-dependent aleatoric uncertainty together with epistemic uncertainty. We study models under the framework with per-pixel semantic segmentation and depth regression tasks. Further, our explicit uncertainty formulation leads to new loss functions for these tasks, which can be interpreted as learned attenuation. This makes the loss more robust to noisy data, also giving new state-of-the-art results on segmentation and depth regression benchmarks.