PreprintCited by 3Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Prompting the Unknown: Understanding Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models

Open access
Zhang, Ze Yu, Verma, Arun, Doshi-Velez, Finale, Low, Bryan Kian Hsiang·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making across diverse domains. Ensuring the generation of safe and reliable responses is critical for the effective deployment of LLM-based applications, particularly in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and finance. Most of these applications typically use carefully crafted prompts to guide response generation; however, the relationship between prompts and the reliability of LLM-generated responses is not yet fully understood. To address this gap, we propose a novel prompt-response concept model that explains the relationship between the amount of task-relevant information (informativeness) provided in the prompt and the LLM-generated response uncertainty by identifying four sources of response uncertainty: prompt underspecification, model quality, task variability, and semantic redundancy. We prove that response uncertainty decreases as prompt informativeness or model quality increases, mirroring the behavior of epistemic uncertainty in probabilistic models. Our experimental results on real-world datasets further validate our proposed model and corroborate the theoretical results.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2407.14845

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • LLMs are highly sensitive to AI personas or alternative prompt framings that explicitly ask for disagreement, uncertainty and pluralism.

    “The encouraging side of this picture is that LLMs are also highly sensitive to AI personas or alternative prompt framings that explicitly ask for disagreement, uncertainty and pluralism.”

    From Complacent, Not Sycophantic: Reframing Large Language Models and Designing AI Literacy for Complacent Machines (2026) · cites this paper as [23]

    The theoretical results (Section 3.2, p. 5) say that response uncertainty changes with prompt informativeness, supporting the general point that prompts affect LLM responses. The cited passages do not show that AI personas or framings requesting disagreement, uncertainty, and pluralism have the claimed effect. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. Gati V Aher, Rosa I Arriaga, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2023. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans and replicate human subject studies. In Proc. ICML , pages 337-371.
  2. Lisa P Argyle, Ethan C Busby, Nancy Fulda, Joshua R Gubler, Christopher Rytting, and David Wingate. 2023. Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples. Political Analysis , pages 337-351.
  3. Konstantine Arkoudas. 2023. Gpt-4 can't reason. arXiv:2308.03762 . · arXiv
  4. Marcel Binz and Eric Schulz. 2023. Using cognitive psychology to understand gpt-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , page e2218523120.
  5. Omar Boursalie, Reza Samavi, and Thomas E Doyle. 2018. Machine learning and mobile health monitoring platforms: a case study on research and implementation challenges. Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research , pages 179-203.
  6. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merriënboer, Dzmitry Bahdanau, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder-decoder approaches. arXiv:1409.1259 . · arXiv
  7. Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv:1803.05457v1 . · arXiv
  8. Ishita Dasgupta, Andrew K Lampinen, Stephanie CY Chan, Antonia Creswell, Dharshan Kumaran, James L McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. arXiv:2207.07051 . · arXiv
  9. Armen Der Kiureghian and Ove Ditlevsen. 2009. Aleatory or epistemic? does it matter? Structural safety , pages 105-112.
  10. Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, and Zhifang Sui. 2022. A survey on in-context learning. arXiv:2301.00234 . · arXiv
  11. Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. arXiv:1805.04833 . · arXiv
  12. Sebastian Farquhar, Jannik Kossen, Lorenz Kuhn, and Yarin Gal. 2024. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature , pages 625-630.
  13. AJ Ferrer-Riquelme. 2009. Statistical control of measures and processes. In Comprehensive Chemometrics . Elsevier, Amsterdam.
  14. Jerry A Fodor. 1998. Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong . Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  15. Tairan Fu, Javier Conde, Gonzalo Martínez, María Grandury, and Pedro Reviriego. 2025. Multiple choice questions: Reasoning makes large language models (llms) more self-confident even when they are wrong. arXiv:2501.09775 . · arXiv
  16. Deep Ganguli, Danny Hernandez, Liane Lovitt, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Nova Dassarma, Dawn Drain, Nelson Elhage, and 1 others. 2022. Predictability and surprise in large generative models. In Proc. ACM FAccT , pages 1747-1764.
  17. Leo Gao, Tom Dupré la Tour, Henk Tillman, Gabriel Goh, Rajan Troll, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, and Jeffrey Wu. 2024. Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders. arXiv:2406.04093 . · arXiv
  18. Google. 2023. PaLM 2 Technical Report. arXiv:2305.10403 . · arXiv
  19. Michael Hahn and Navin Goyal. 2023. A theory of emergent in-context learning as implicit structure induction. arXiv:2303.07971 . · arXiv
  20. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv:1503.02531 . · arXiv
  21. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. arXiv:1904.09751 . · arXiv
  22. Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. 2023a. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. arXiv:2310.01798 . · arXiv
  23. Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and 1 others. 2023b. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. arXiv:2311.05232 . · arXiv
  24. Yuheng Huang, Jiayang Song, Zhijie Wang, Huaming Chen, and Lei Ma. 2023c. Look before you leap: An exploratory study of uncertainty measurement for large language models. arXiv:2307.10236 . · arXiv
  25. Eyke Hüllermeier and Willem Waegeman. 2021. Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods. Machine Learning , pages 457-506.
  26. James R Hurford, Brendan Heasley, and Michael B Smith. 2007. Semantics: a coursebook . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  27. Hakan Inan, Kartikeya Upasani, Jianfeng Chi, Rashi Rungta, Krithika Iyer, Yuning Mao, Michael Tontchev, Qing Hu, Brian Fuller, Davide Testuggine, and 1 others. 2023. Llama guard: Llm-based input-output safeguard for human-ai conversations. arXiv:2312.06674 . · arXiv
  28. Di Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. 2021. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams. Applied Sciences , 11(14):6421.
  29. Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, and 1 others. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv:2207.05221 . · arXiv
  30. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Proc. NeurIPS , pages 22199-22213.
  31. Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. 2023. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation. arXiv:2302.09664 . · arXiv
  32. Salem Lahlou, Moksh Jain, Hadi Nekoei, Victor Ion Butoi, Paul Bertin, Jarrid Rector-Brooks, Maksym Korablyov, and Yoshua Bengio. 2021. Deup: Direct epistemic uncertainty prediction. arXiv:2102.08501 . · arXiv
  33. Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. RACE: Large-scale ReAding comprehension dataset from examinations. In Proc. EMNLP , pages 785-794.
  34. Stephen Laurence and Eric Margolis. 1999. Concepts and Cognitive Science , pages 3-81. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  35. Moxin Li, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Fengbin Zhu, Qifan Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Think twice before assure: Confidence estimation for large language models through reflection on multiple answers. arXiv:2403.09972 . · arXiv
  36. Tom Lieberum, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Arthur Conmy, Lewis Smith, Nicolas Sonnerat, Vikrant Varma, János Kramár, Anca Dragan, Rohin Shah, and Neel Nanda. 2024. Gemma scope: Open sparse autoencoders everywhere all at once on gemma 2. arXiv:2408.05147 . · arXiv
  37. Zhen Lin, Shubhendu Trivedi, and Jimeng Sun. 2023. Generating with confidence: Uncertainty quantification for black-box large language models. arXiv:2305.19187 . · arXiv
  38. Chen Ling, Xujiang Zhao, Xuchao Zhang, Wei Cheng, Yanchi Liu, Yiyou Sun, Mika Oishi, Takao Osaki, Katsushi Matsuda, Jie Ji, and 1 others. 2024. Uncertainty quantification for in-context learning of large language models. In Proc. NAACL HLT , pages 33573370.
  39. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys , pages 1-35.
  40. Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2021. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming fewshot prompt order sensitivity. arXiv:2104.08786 . · arXiv
  41. Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Proc. EMNLP .
  42. Milad Nasr, Nicholas Carlini, Jonathan Hayase, Matthew Jagielski, A Feder Cooper, Daphne Ippolito, Christopher A Choquette-Choo, Eric Wallace, Florian Tramèr, and Katherine Lee. 2023. Scalable extraction of training data from (production) language models. arXiv:2311.17035 . · arXiv
  43. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv:2303.08774 . · arXiv
  44. Alina Petukhova, Joao P Matos-Carvalho, and Nuno Fachada. 2024. Text clustering with llm embeddings. arXiv:2403.15112 . · arXiv
  45. Gualtiero Piccinini and Sam Scott. 2006. Splitting concepts. Philosophy of Science , pages 390-409.
  46. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proc. EMNLP , pages 2383-2392.
  47. Pranab Sahoo, Ayush Kumar Singh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, Samrat Mondal, and Aman Chadha. 2024. A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications. arXiv:2402.07927 . · arXiv
  48. Malik Sallam. 2023. Chatgpt utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. In Healthcare , page 887.
  49. Robin Senge, Stefan Bösner, Krzysztof Dembczy´ nski, Jörg Haasenritter, Oliver Hirsch, Norbert DonnerBanzhoff, and Eyke Hüllermeier. 2014. Reliable classification: Learning classifiers that distinguish aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. Information Sciences , pages 16-29.
  50. Mohammad Hossein Shaker and Eyke Hüllermeier. 2020. Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty with random forests. In Proc. IDA , pages 444-456.
  51. Eura Shin, Siddharth Swaroop, Weiwei Pan, Susan Murphy, and Finale Doshi-Velez. 2022. Modeling mobile health users as reinforcement learning agents. arXiv:2212.00863 . · arXiv
  52. Aniket Kumar Singh, Suman Devkota, Bishal Lamichhane, Uttam Dhakal, and Chandra Dhakal. 2023. The confidence-competence gap in large language models: A cognitive study. arXiv:2309.16145 . · arXiv
  53. Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Proc. NeurIPS .
  54. Anna L Trella, Kelly W Zhang, Inbal Nahum-Shani, Vivek Shetty, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Susan A Murphy. 2023. Reward design for an online reinforcement learning algorithm supporting oral self-care. In Proc. AAAI , pages 15724-15730.
  55. Matias Valdenegro-Toro and Daniel Saromo Mori. 2022. A deeper look into aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty disentanglement. In Proc. IEEE/CVF CVPR Workshops , pages 1508-1516.
  56. Sridevi Wagle, Sai Munikoti, Anurag Acharya, Sara Smith, and Sameera Horawalavithana. 2023. Empirical evaluation of uncertainty quantification in retrieval-augmented language models for science. arXiv:2311.09358 . · arXiv
  57. Xinyi Wang, Wanrong Zhu, Michael Saxon, Mark Steyvers, and William Yang Wang. 2023. Large language models are latent variable models: Explaining and finding good demonstrations for in-context learning. In Proc. NeurIPS .
  58. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, and 1 others. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proc. NeurIPS , pages 24824-24837.
  59. Daniel Aaron Weiskopf. 2009. The plurality of concepts. Synthese , pages 145-173.
  60. Ilona Wilmont, Sytse Hengeveld, Erik Barendsen, and Stijn Hoppenbrouwers. 2013. Cognitive mechanisms of conceptual modelling: How do people do it? In Proc. ER , pages 74-87.
  61. Likang Wu, Zhi Zheng, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hao Wang, Hongchao Gu, Tingjia Shen, Chuan Qin, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Qi Liu, and 1 others. 2023a. A survey on large language models for recommendation. arXiv:2305.19860 . · arXiv
  62. Shijie Wu, Ozan Irsoy, Steven Lu, Vadim Dabravolski, Mark Dredze, Sebastian Gehrmann, Prabhanjan Kambadur, David Rosenberg, and Gideon Mann. 2023b. Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance. arXiv:2303.17564 . · arXiv
  63. Changrong Xiao, Sean Xin Xu, Kunpeng Zhang, Yufang Wang, and Lei Xia. 2023. Evaluating reading comprehension exercises generated by llms: A showcase of chatgpt in education applications. In Proc. BEA , pages 610-625.
  64. Sang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2022. An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian inference. In Proc. ICLR .
  65. Rui Yang, Ting Fang Tan, Wei Lu, Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Daniel Shu Wei Ting, and Nan Liu. 2023. Large language models in health care: Development, applications, and challenges. Health Care Science , pages 255-263.
  66. Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In Proc. ICLR .
  67. Zheng-Xin Yong, Cristina Menghini, and Stephen H Bach. 2023. Low-resource languages jailbreak gpt-4. arXiv:2310.02446 . · arXiv
  68. Dell Zhang, Alina Petrova, Dietrich Trautmann, and Frank Schilder. 2023a. Unleashing the power of large language models for legal applications. In Proc. ACM CIKM , pages 5257-5258.
  69. Yufeng Zhang, Fengzhuo Zhang, Zhuoran Yang, and Zhaoran Wang. 2023b. What and how does in-context learning learn? bayesian model averaging, parameterization, and generalization. arXiv:2305.19420 . · arXiv
  70. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, and 1 others. 2023. A Survey of Large Language Models. arXiv:2303.18223 . · arXiv
  71. Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, J Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson. 2023. Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models. arXiv:2307.15043 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, Z. Y., Verma, A., Doshi-Velez, F., & Low, B. K. H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
30956-30984
OpenAlex
W7166847177
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
response uncertainty, large language models, prompting, uncertainty estimation

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