Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the reliability of large language models (LLMs) in expressing confidence during machine translation tasks by developing five verbalized methods for extracting per-token confidence without relying on internal signals. The study reveals that while both verbalized and internal methods yield similar performance in fine-grained error detection and calibration, they exhibit little to no correlation, suggesting that LLMs may not accurately reflect their certainty in a way that aligns with actual correctness. These findings highlight the potential pitfalls of using internal signals for assessing translation confidence and underscore the importance of verbalized approaches in improving reliability.
LLMs' internal confidence signals may mislead, as our verbalized methods reveal a stark disconnect between certainty and correctness in machine translation.
The rapid rise in popularity of large language models (LLMs) for translation calls for a thorough study of the reliability of their confidence in their own outputs. Unlike many generation tasks, translation errors and confidence levels can be useful at different levels of granularity (tokens, words, or spans). Unsupervised approaches based on internal signals like predicted probabilities can be misleading because they reflect certainty among alternatives rather than correctness. In addition, they require access to such internal signals. Here, we devise five verbalized methods of extracting an LLM's per-token confidence without those shortcomings and compare their reliability with that of the model's internal signals of certainty. We evaluate reliability using two forms of alignment: fine-grained error detection and calibration. For both, internal and verbalized methods perform similarly, although results vary by model. Interestingly, we find little to no correlation between internal and verbalized methods.
