PreprintCited by 6Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingSpeech and dialogue systems

The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.

Uncertainty in Natural Language Generation: From Theory to Applications

Open access

Abstract

Recent advances of powerful Language Models have allowed Natural Language Generation (NLG) to emerge as an important technology that can not only perform traditional tasks like summarisation or translation, but also serve as a natural language interface to a variety of applications. As such, it is crucial that NLG systems are trustworthy and reliable, for example by indicating when they are likely to be wrong; and supporting multiple views, backgrounds and writing styles -- reflecting diverse human sub-populations. In this paper, we argue that a principled treatment of uncertainty can assist in creating systems and evaluation protocols better aligned with these goals. We first present the fundamental theory, frameworks and vocabulary required to represent uncertainty. We then characterise the main sources of uncertainty in NLG from a linguistic perspective, and propose a two-dimensional taxonomy that is more informative and faithful than the popular aleatoric/epistemic dichotomy. Finally, we move from theory to applications and highlight exciting research directions that exploit uncertainty to power decoding, controllable generation, self-assessment, selective answering, active learning and more.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2307.15703

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 6

Metadata

Authors
Baan, J., Daheim, N., Ilia, E., Ulmer, D., Li, H.-S., Fernández, R., Plank, B., Sennrich, R., Zerva, C., & Aziz, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
  • IT University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Munich Center for Machine Learning (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Instituto de Telecomunicações (PT)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385438411
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (176727)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
  • H2020 European Research Council (819455)
  • HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council (101043235)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
uncertainty representation, aleatoric uncertainty, epistemic uncertainty, uncertainty taxonomy, trustworthy AI, natural language interfaces, controllable generation, self-assessment, active learning (machine learning), decoding, 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