Calibrating Semantic Uncertainty from Observable Language-Model Probabilities
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As generative artificial intelligence enters scientific and professional work, its uncertainty must be defined on the states that matter for inference and decision-making. Language models assign probabilities to words, whereas applications require uncertainty over meaningful states such as diagnoses, hypotheses or operational conditions. We introduce a semantic map: a prespecified, testable bridge from probabilities over verbal responses to a posterior over declared finite states. The language distribution remains unrestricted; held-out calibration connects it to a reference posterior. We derive posterior-error bounds and conditions for existence, conditional uniqueness, presentation stability and stable inverse recovery. This distinction matters because language probabilities depend on prompt wording, while the target posterior should not change under information-equivalent rewording. Experiments use professional market text compiled from Federal Reserve economic and financial series, together with controlled simulations having exact posteriors. Across two fitted language models, language-derived probabilities outperform printed numerical confidence, recover held-out posteriors with valid uncertainty coverage, remain largely stable under paraphrase and respond appropriately to altered evidence. Prompt engineering optimises a wording-dependent response; robust scientific use requires validated stability of application-relevant meaning. The proposed map turns semantic uncertainty in generative systems into an identifiable and testable statistical measurement problem and, when its acceptance conditions hold, yields an auditable posterior estimate.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jul 2026.
Builds on
10 of 37 references.
References · 10
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
- 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 795
- 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 788
- 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 731
- 2016Distribution-Free Predictive Inference For Regressioncited by 657
- 2020How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answeringcited by 439
- 2024Uncertainty in Language Models: Assessment through Rank-Calibrationcited by 40
- 2024Improving Uncertainty Quantification in Large Language Models via Semantic Embeddingscited by 30
- 2024On Subjective Uncertainty Quantification and Calibration in Natural Language Generationcited by 14
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026Credal Large Language Models for Semantic Commitment under Uncertaintycited by 2
- 2026Identification and Honest Recovery from Semantic Observation Kernels: Operator Error, Coarsening, and Stabilitycited by 0
- 2026Foundations of Stochastic Lexical Calculus: Semantic Descent and Random Dynamics on Probability Simplicescited by 0
- 2026Stochastic Semantic Evidence Graphs: Uncertainty Propagation and Governance for Agentic AIcited by 0
- 2026Stochastic Semantic Evidence Graphs: Uncertainty Propagation and Governance for Agentic AI3 Sep 2026
- 2026Credal Large Language Models for Semantic Commitment under Uncertainty24 Aug 2026
- 2026Foundations of Stochastic Lexical Calculus: Semantic Descent and Random Dynamics on Probability Simplices25 Jul 2026
- 2026Identification and Honest Recovery from Semantic Observation Kernels: Operator Error, Coarsening, and Stability25 Jul 2026