PromptNCE: Conditional Probabilities and PMI Using Only LLMs and Contrastive Estimation Prompts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Estimating mutual information from text usually requires training a task-specific critic, which limits its use in low-data settings. We ask whether large language models can instead estimate pointwise mutual information zero-shot, using only prompts and elicited probabilities. We construct a benchmark from three publicly available human-annotated datasets with ground-truth PMI, and evaluate five information-theoretic prompting-based estimators. Our main method, PromptNCE, frames conditional probability estimation as a contrastive task and augments the candidate set with an explicit OTHER category. The OTHER category allows the model to assign probability mass outside the candidate set, avoiding the closed-set normalization of standard contrastive prompts. PromptNCE gives the best conditional probability estimates on all three datasets. For full PMI, we find that estimating label base rates is the primary bottleneck on two of the three datasets, with the best methods reaching Spearman correlation up to 0.78. We also present a case study in computer science education showing how these estimators can be used to score student knowledge summaries in a low-data setting. We release our code and prompts.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2026.
Builds on
19 of 26 references.
References · 19
- 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 11,979
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,662
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
- 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
- 2018Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximizationcited by 1,265
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 946
- 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 788
- 2018MINE: Mutual Information Neural Estimationcited by 680
- 2017Opening the Black Box of Deep Neural Networks via Informationcited by 494
- 2024From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgecited by 480
- 2020GoEmotions: A Dataset of Fine-Grained Emotionscited by 479
7 more
- 2024LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methodscited by 451
- 2021Surface Form Competition: Why the Highest Probability Answer Isn't Always Rightcited by 256
- 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 148
- 2023Quantifying Uncertainty in Answers from any Language Model and Enhancing their Trustworthinesscited by 121
- 2024Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't Knowcited by 99
- 2015A Review of Feature Selection Methods Based on Mutual Informationcited by 67
- 2024Benchmarking LLMs' Judgments with No Gold Standardcited by 19
Built on by
Not cited yet.