Cited by 17Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Large language model validity via enhanced conformal prediction methods

Open access
Cherian, John, Gibbs, Isaac, Candès, Emmanuel·2024·Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37

Abstract

We develop new conformal inference methods for obtaining validity guarantees on the output of large language models (LLMs). Prior work in conformal language modeling identifies a subset of the text that satisfies a high-probability guarantee of correctness. These methods work by filtering claims from the LLM's original response if a scoring function evaluated on the claim fails to exceed a threshold calibrated via split conformal prediction. Existing methods in this area suffer from two deficiencies. First, the guarantee stated is not conditionally valid. The trustworthiness of the filtering step may vary based on the topic of the response. Second, because the scoring function is imperfect, the filtering step can remove many valuable and accurate claims. We address both of these challenges via two new conformal methods. First, we generalize the conditional conformal procedure of Gibbs et al. (2023) in order to adaptively issue weaker guarantees when they are required to preserve the utility of the output. Second, we show how to systematically improve the quality of the scoring function via a novel algorithm for differentiating through the conditional conformal procedure. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach on biography and medical question-answering datasets.

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

Crossref · 10.52202/079017-3645

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Recent work applying conformal prediction to LLM safety predominantly addresses single-turn interactions rather than extended trajectories where actions compound.

    “Recent work has begun applying conformal prediction methods to LLM safety, controlling tail risks (Chen et al., 2025), improving factuality (Cherian et al., 2024), and mediating between helpfulness and harmlessness (Overman & Bayati, 2025), but these approaches predominantly address singleturn interactions rather than extended trajectories where actions compound.”

    From Calibrating Conservatism for Scalable Oversight (2026) · cites this paper as Cherian et al., 2024

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. A. B. Abacha, E. Agichtein, Y. Pinter, and D. Demner-Fushman. Overview of the medical question answering task at trec 2017 liveqa. In TREC, pages 1-12, 2017.
  2. A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, E. J. Candès, M. I. Jordan, and L. Lei. Learn then test: Calibrating predictive algorithms to achieve risk control. arXiv preprint, 2022. arXiv:2110.01052. · arXiv
  3. A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, A. Fisch, L. Lei, and T. Schuster. Conformal risk control. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=33XGfHLtZg.
  4. A. Azaria and T. Mitchell. The internal state of an llm knows when it's lying. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 967-976, 2023.
  5. R. F. Barber, E. J. Candès, A. Ramdas, and R. J. Tibshirani. The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference. Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 10(2): 455-482, 08 2020. ISSN 2049-8772. doi: 10.1093/imaiai/iaaa017. · DOI
  6. A. Charnes. Optimality and degeneracy in linear programming. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 160-170, 1952.
  7. G. B. Dantzig and M. N. Thapa. Linear programming: Theory and extensions, volume 2. Springer, 2003.
  8. G. Detommaso, M. Bertran, R. Fogliato, and A. Roth. Multicalibration for confidence scoring in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04689, 2024. · arXiv
  9. I. Gibbs, J. J. Cherian, and E. J. Candès. Conformal prediction with conditional guarantees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12616, 2023. · arXiv
  10. P. Gopalan, M. P. Kim, M. A. Singhal, and S. Zhao. Low-degree multicalibration. In Conference on Learning Theory, pages 3193-3234. PMLR, 2022.
  11. U. Hébert-Johnson, M. Kim, O. Reingold, and G. Rothblum. Multicalibration: Calibration for the (computationally-identifiable) masses. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1939-1948. PMLR, 2018.
  12. M. Jeong, H. Hwang, C. Yoon, T. Lee, and J. Kang. Olaph: Improving factuality in biomedical long-form question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12701, 2024. · arXiv
  13. S. Kadavath, T. Conerly, A. Askell, T. Henighan, D. Drain, E. Perez, N. Schiefer, Z. Hatfield- Dodds, N. DasSarma, E. Tran-Johnson, et al. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221, 2022. · arXiv
  14. M. Kang, N. M. Gürel, N. Yu, D. Song, and B. Li. C-RAG: Certified generation risks for retrieval-augmented language models. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235, pages 22963-23000. PMLR, 21-27 Jul 2024. URL https: //proceedings.mlr.press/v235/kang24a.html.
  15. S. Kiyani, G. Pappas, and H. Hassani. Length optimization in conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18814, 2024. · arXiv
  16. B. Kumar, C. Lu, G. Gupta, A. Palepu, D. Bellamy, R. Raskar, and A. Beam. Conformal prediction with large language models for multi-choice question answering. arXiv preprint, 2023. arXiv:2305.18404. · arXiv
  17. I. Manes, N. Ronn, D. Cohen, R. I. Ber, Z. Horowitz-Kugler, and G. Stanovsky. K-qa: A real-world medical q&a benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14493, 2024. · arXiv
  18. S. Min, K. Krishna, X. Lyu, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, P. W. Koh, M. Iyyer, L. Zettlemoyer, and H. Hajishirzi. Factscore: Fine-grained atomic evaluation of factual precision in long form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14251, 2023. · arXiv
  19. C. Mohri and T. Hashimoto. Language models with conformal factuality guarantees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10978, 2024. · arXiv
  20. D. Nadeau, M. Kroutikov, K. McNeil, and S. Baribeau. Benchmarking llama2, mistral, gemma and gpt for factuality, toxicity, bias and propensity for hallucinations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09785, 2024. · arXiv
  21. H. Papadopoulos, K. Proedrou, V. Vovk, and A. Gammerman. Inductive confidence machines for regression. In T. Elomaa, H. Mannila, and H. Toivonen, editors, Machine Learning: ECML 2002, pages 345-356, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540- 36755-0.
  22. J. Porter. Chatgpt active user count reaches new milestone, Novem- ber 2023. URL https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/6/23948386/ chatgpt-active-user-count-openai-developer-conference. Accessed: 2024- 05-20.
  23. V. Quach, A. Fisch, T. Schuster, A. Yala, J. H. Sohn, T. S. Jaakkola, and R. Barzilay. Conformal language modeling. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=pzUhfQ74c5.
  24. K. Singhal, S. Azizi, T. Tu, S. S. Mahdavi, J. Wei, H. W. Chung, N. Scales, A. Tanwani, H. Cole-Lewis, S. Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620 (7972):172-180, 2023.
  25. D. Stutz, K. D. Dvijotham, A. T. Cemgil, and A. Doucet. Learning optimal conformal classifiers. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  26. N. Varshney, W. Yao, H. Zhang, J. Chen, and D. Yu. A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987, 2023. · arXiv
  27. V. Vovk. Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors. In S. C. H. Hoi and W. Buntine, editors, Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Machine Learning, volume 25 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 475-490, Singapore Management University, Singapore, 04-06 Nov 2012. PMLR.
  28. V. Vovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer. Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. ISBN 0387001522.
  29. F. Ye, M. Yang, J. Pang, L. Wang, D. F. Wong, E. Yilmaz, S. Shi, and Z. Tu. Benchmarking llms via uncertainty quantification, 2024. arXiv:2401.12794. · arXiv
  30. Y. Zhang and E. J. Candès. Posterior conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19712, 2024. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cherian, J., Gibbs, I., & Candès, E.
Venue
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37
Published
2024
Pages
114812-114842
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415795647
Cited by
17
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2
FWCI
4.11
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2032014)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014)
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
large language models, conformal prediction, validity, uncertainty estimation, prediction intervals

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