This work proposes Logical Graph Uncertainty (LGU), a framework that explicitly models implication and incompatibility among answers, and ranks first on average among existing uncertainty measures.
Abstract
Large Language Models often produce confidently stated yet unreliable outputs, posing critical challenges for deployment in safety-sensitive applications. Existing uncertainty metrics such as semantic entropy capture agreement at the level of semantic equivalence, but largely ignore the logical relationships between distinct answers. As a result, they tend to overestimate uncertainty and falsely flag hallucinations in settings where generated responses are diverse in form yet logically compatible (e.g., differing only in granularity or specificity). We propose Logical Graph Uncertainty (LGU), a framework that explicitly models implication and incompatibility among answers. LGU aggregates probability mass along entailment chains onto the most specific hypotheses the answers support, measures the entropy of the resulting distribution, and penalizes mutual incompatibility among those hypotheses. Across multiple question-answering benchmarks and model families, LGU ranks first on average among existing uncertainty measures, with its largest gains---up to +7.1\% AUROC and +3.5\% AUARC over semantic entropy---on questions whose sampled answers are logically structured.
An ensemble of LoRA adapters induces a credal set whose lower and upper probabilities expose the spread of plausible predictive distributions rather than collapsing to a single softmax output, and derives two complementary commitment scores.
S. K. Manchingal, S. Nikolenko, Fabio Cuzzolin· 1 citation
SymboUQ is a symbolic uncertainty quantification framework that estimates final-answer reliability from reasoning traces by distinguishing symbolizability, whether a claim can be represented in the verifier's formal language, from semantic determinacy, whether its execution yields an entailed or contradicted verdict ra...
Da-Hai Yu, Lin Jiang, Rong-Chao Xu et al.· 0 citations
This work argues that answers are not necessary for identifying ambiguity: they are often redundant, add avoidable cost, and can mislead through epistemic leakage, and suggests that ambiguity-induced aleatoric uncertainty is better estimated from the interpretation space than from the response space.
Omer Nahum, Niv Nayman, Jonathan Fhima et al.· 0 citations
This work proposes Sequential Epistemic and Action-Level Validation (SEAV), a verification-centric jailbreak evaluation framework that decomposes responses into ordered steps and evaluates both validity and correctness, and shows that enforcing correctness substantially reshapes measured robustness.
Qilong Wu, Sahil Wadhwa, Pranab Mohanty et al.· 0 citations
This work instantiate this framework with p, a hybrid estimator that combines verbal confidence with spectral answer diversity computed from the negative von Neumann entropy of sampled answer embeddings, and achieves higher average AUROC than verbal confidence and sampling-based uncertainty while using half as many sam...
Rounak Sharma, Ananya B. Sai, Soumyabrata Pal· 0 citations
This work delineates LLM reasoning boundaries and presents a new paradigm for fine-grained capability assessment, which suggests that genuine reasoning is demonstrated only when a model follows logical rules despite conflicting prior knowledge.
Fangfei Yan, Jianbo Yao, Michael K. Chen et al.· Proceedings of the 32nd ACM...· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.