The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.
Uncertainty in Natural Language Generation: From Theory to Applications
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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 [6]
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)
- arXiv
- 2307.15703
- OpenAlex
- W4385438411
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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