Tim Tomov

LLM decoding often relies on the model’s predictive distribution to generate an output. Consequently, misalignment with respect to the true generating distribution leads to suboptimal decisions in practice. While a natural solution is to calibrate the model’s output distribution, for LLMs, this is ill-posed at the combinatorially vast level of free-form language. We address this by building on the insight that in many tasks, these free-form outputs can be interpreted in a semantically meaningful latent structure, for example, discrete class labels, integers, or sets. We introduce task calibration as a paradigm to calibrate the model’s predictive distribution in the task-induced latent space. We apply a decision-theoretic result to show that Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding on the task-calibrated latent distribution is the optimal decoding strategy on latent model beliefs. Empirically, it consistently improves generation quality across different tasks and baselines. We also introduce Task Calibration Error (TCE), an application-aware calibration metric that quantifies the excess loss due to miscalibration. Our work demonstrates that task calibration enables more reliable model decisions across various tasks and applications.

In many applications of LLMs, natural language responses often have an underlying structure such as representing discrete labels, numerical values, or graphs. Yet, existing decoding and uncertainty estimation methods operate only in language space and largely disregard structural information. We address this by modeling LLM outputs directly in a task-dependent latent structure. By equipping this structure with a dissimilarity measure, we can compute Bayes-optimal responses. These are not selected from sampled generations but are newly synthesized by combining individual responses in the latent space. Across different tasks, Bayes-optimal responses consistently outperform standard decoding methods like beam search. Moreover, quantifying uncertainty via the induced Bayesian risk captures variations in terms of the latent structure and improves alignment with output quality and correctness. Our decision-theoretic framework is applicable to any problem that admits a latent response structure and enables reliable task-aware LLM predictions.

Accurate uncertainty quantification (UQ) in Large Language Models (LLMs) is critical for trustworthy deployment. While real-world language is inherently ambiguous, reflecting aleatoric uncertainty, existing UQ methods are typically benchmarked against tasks with no ambiguity. In this work, we demonstrate that while current uncertainty estimators perform well under the restrictive assumption of no ambiguity, they degrade to close-to-random performance on ambiguous data. To this end, we introduce MAQA* and AmbigQA*, the first ambiguous question-answering (QA) datasets equipped with ground-truth answer distributions estimated from factual co-occurrence. We find this performance deterioration to be consistent across different estimation paradigms: using the predictive distribution itself, internal representations throughout the model, and an ensemble of models. We show that this phenomenon can be theoretically explained, revealing that predictive-distribution and ensemble-based estimators are fundamentally limited under ambiguity. Overall, our study reveals a key shortcoming of current UQ methods for LLMs and motivates a rethinking of current modeling paradigms.

Accurate uncertainty quantification (UQ) in Large Language Models (LLMs) is critical for trustworthy deployment. While real-world language is inherently ambiguous, existing UQ methods implicitly assume scenarios with no ambiguity. Therefore, a natural question is how they work under ambiguity. In this work, we demonstrate that current uncertainty estimators only perform well under the restrictive assumption of no aleatoric uncertainty and degrade significantly on ambiguous data. Specifically, we provide theoretical insights into this limitation and introduce two question-answering (QA) datasets with ground-truth answer probabilities. Using these datasets, we show that current uncertainty estimators perform close to random under real-world ambiguity. This highlights a fundamental limitation in existing practices and emphasizes the urgent need for new uncertainty quantification approaches that account for the ambiguity in language modeling.