Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words
Open accessAbstract
We show that a GPT-3 model can learn to express uncertainty about its own answers in natural language -- without use of model logits. When given a question, the model generates both an answer and a level of confidence (e.g. "90% confidence" or "high confidence"). These levels map to probabilities that are well calibrated. The model also remains moderately calibrated under distribution shift, and is sensitive to uncertainty in its own answers, rather than imitating human examples. To our knowledge, this is the first time a model has been shown to express calibrated uncertainty about its own answers in natural language. For testing calibration, we introduce the CalibratedMath suite of tasks. We compare the calibration of uncertainty expressed in words ("verbalized probability") to uncertainty extracted from model logits. Both kinds of uncertainty are capable of generalizing calibration under distribution shift. We also provide evidence that GPT-3's ability to generalize calibration depends on pre-trained latent representations that correlate with epistemic uncertainty over its answers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The research community has called for LLMs and LLM-infused applications to express the uncertainty of outputs to end users.
“As one approach to reduce overreliance, the research community has called for LLMs and LLM-infused applications to express the uncertainty of outputs to end users [6, 56, 57, 73, 101, 120].”
From "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust (2024) · cites this paper as [57]
LLMs rely on probabilistic associations rather than verified information, generating text that appears plausible but is not cross-checked for factual accuracy.
“One core explanation is that LLMs rely on probabilistic associations rather than verified information, generating text that appears plausible but is not cross-checked for factual accuracy23.”
From Multi-model assurance analysis showing large language models are highly vulnerable to adversarial hallucination attacks during clinical decision support (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
GPT-3 can be trained to state how confident it is in producing an answer that is factually correct.
“recent research has shown that GPT-3 can be trained to state how confident it is in producing an answer that is factually correct (Lin et al., 2022)”
From Academic Integrity considerations of AI Large Language Models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond (2023) · cites this paper as Lin et al., 2022
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 59
- Authors
- Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2205.14334
- OpenAlex
- W4281748205
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 26
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- epistemic uncertainty, uncertainty calibration, GPT-3, distribution shift, logit, latent representations, large language models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review