The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Relying on the Unreliable: The Impact of Language Models' Reluctance to Express Uncertainty
Open accessAbstract
As natural language becomes the default interface for human-AI interaction, there is a need for LMs to appropriately communicate uncertainties in downstream applications. In this work, we investigate how LMs incorporate confidence in responses via natural language and how downstream users behave in response to LM-articulated uncertainties. We examine publicly deployed models and find that LMs are reluctant to express uncertainties when answering questions even when they produce incorrect responses. LMs can be explicitly prompted to express confidences, but tend to be overconfident, resulting in high error rates (an average of 47%) among confident responses. We test the risks of LM overconfidence by conducting human experiments and show that users rely heavily on LM generations, whether or not they are marked by certainty. Lastly, we investigate the preference-annotated datasets used in post training alignment and find that humans are biased against texts with uncertainty. Our work highlights new safety harms facing human-LM interactions and proposes design recommendations and mitigating strategies moving forward.
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?
First-person expressions of confidence may exacerbate overreliance and overtrust, as found in prior work.
“one may want to avoid first-person expressions of confidence because they may exacerbate overreliance and overtrust, as found in prior work [119].”
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 [119]
Vasconcelos et al., Spatharioti et al., and Zhou et al. found results supporting uncertainty expression as a promising technique to encourage appropriate reliance, particularly when uncertainty estimates are well calibrated.
“These studies' results support uncertainty expression as a promising technique to encourage appropriate reliance, particularly when uncertainty estimates are well calibrated.”
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 Zhou et al. [119]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kim, S. S. Y., Liao, Q. V., Vorvoreanu, M., Ballard, S., & Vaughan, J. W. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658941 · Cited by 147
Kim, S. S. Y., Vaughan, J. W., Liao, Q. V., Lombrozo, T., & Russakovsky, O. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714020 · Cited by 58
“While most prior work on AI reliance has been in the context of classical AI models (e.g., specialized classification models), there is a growing body of work looking at reliance on systems based on LLMs or other modern generative AI models [60, 71, 109, 110, 113, 135].”
Caution Ahead: Numerical Reasoning and Look‐Ahead Bias in AI Models
LEVY, B. (2026) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1475-679x.70058 · Cited by 20
Are Large Language Models Consistent over Value-laden Questions?
Moore, J., Deshpande, T., & Yang, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.02996 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhou, K., Hwang, J. D., Ren, X., & Sap, M.
- Affiliations
- Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 3623-3643
- ISSN
- 0736-587X (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2401.06730
- OpenAlex
- W4402671787
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 20.03
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2048211)
- Office of the Director of National Intelligence
- Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- uncertainty expression, large language models, overconfidence, confidence calibration, human-AI interaction, preference dataset, post-training alignment, human experimentation
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