Evaluating LLM Uncertainty in Long-Form Generation Using Deterministic Ground Truth
Ido Amit, Ido Galil, Ran El-Yaniv
Abstract
As LLMs generate increasingly long outputs, effective uncertainty estimation must identify errors at fine-grained levels rather than discard entire responses. While such methods exist, evaluating uncertainty at any resolution (token to an entire generation) is challenging and highly sensitive to label imperfections, making zero-noise benchmarks essential; yet, long-form generation benchmarks tend to rely on fallible labels rather than deterministic ground truth. We introduce Single-answer Atomic Long-form Target (SALT), a benchmark of six procedurally generated tasks with single deterministic long textual ground truths, enabling unit-level evaluation of correctness, calibration, and ranking without external judges. Equipped with SALT, our analysis of 50+ LLMs reveals key insights: We identify which confidence functions dominate each uncertainty aspect and show that confidence ranking largely breaks at atomic resolution, even when clearer separability emerges at coarser line-level units. SALT further enables controlled atom-level interventions throughout generation, revealing two separable drivers of future errors: propagation from corrupted prefixes, dominated by global context correctness, and bounded degradation from increasing answer-context length. Finally, we demonstrate that reasoning, via Chain-of-Thought prompting or internalized through training, introduces a trade-off, improving accuracy while degrading confidence ranking. These findings directly impact risk-critical applications requiring reliable error identification and mitigation. We release the Code at https://github.com/IdoAmit198/SALT .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 8583c7a2-0a25-4cc3-bf5d-9bec5f67a4c8Builds on17
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural LanguageYonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao et al.AAAI 2020 · 2,916 citations
- Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant ContextFreda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales et al.ICML 2023 · 970 citations
- Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMsMiao Xiong, Zhiyuan Hu, Xinyang Lu, Yifei Li et al.ICLR 2024 · 867 citations
- Uncertainty Estimation in Autoregressive Structured PredictionAndrey Malinin, Mark J. F. GalesICLR 2021 · 439 citations
Related papers
- Sample Smart, Not Hard: Correctness-First Decoding for Better Reasoning in LLMsXueyan Li, Guinan Su, Mrinmaya Sachan, Jonas GeipingICLR 2026 · 5 citations
- IUQ: Interrogative Uncertainty Quantification for Long-Form Large Language Model GenerationHaozhi Fan, Jinhao Duan, Kaidi XuACL 2026 · 1 citation
- MetaFaith: Faithful Natural Language Uncertainty Expression in LLMsGabrielle Kaili-May Liu, Gal Yona, Avi Caciularu, Idan Szpektor et al.EMNLP 2025
- Calibrating Large Language Models Using Their Generations OnlyDennis Ulmer, Martin Gubri, Hwaran Lee, Sangdoo Yun et al.ACL 2024
- Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't KnowSanyam Kapoor, Nate Gruver, Manley Roberts, Katie Collins et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 124 citations
