alt Hacker NewsGoing directly for the logprobs is always icky when you use a chat model as base, because they are trained to write prose as output. So your "choice" tokens and thus their probabilities might get diluted in whatever else it wanted to say. If you have to do it in the same way as this post, at least add clear system instructions and a carefully worded beginning to the assistant output section of the prompt to lower the chances of it wandering off immediately.
I've found that using structured outputs solves this problem much better. Instead of letting a model generate only "A", "B" or "C" and looking at the probs, have it directly generate "Legitimate", "Spam" or "Phishing" or any other pre-defined option from a set of multi-token sequences. Behind the scenes it boils down to something quite similar, but you're not running into the risk that the model actually wanted to say "A phishing attempt seems likely, so answer (C) is correct.", which would lead "A" to have the highest probability in the first token. You can even use a reasoning budget this way either via inherent reasoning or a free-form part preceding the remaining output structure. You can also have it assign probabilities (either in words or numbers) using more complex output structures, but I would not rely on them much more than the token logprobs (they can still be quite good though).
Replies
In my experience as well using logprobs to try to quantify uncertainty, LLMs are a poor fit. Neural nets in general struggle with 'calibration' --- ie. if a prediction is truly 50/50, neural nets are often prone to predicting overconfidently [0].
I ran some tests using GPT-4 to do some basic classification a couple years ago. On ambiguous options which had to be escalated to a human, the LLM would regularly output something like a 99.8% probability, compared to 99.99% for a correct answer.
+1, llama.cpp has a --grammar parameter which you can pass a BNF style grammar file to constrain generation. It can be used in Python llama.cpp wrapper
https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/llama-cpp-python-grammars
If we're talking about running it locally, what about passing a partial response as part of the input?
Prompt part: "What is better, toast or bread?"
Incomplete answer part: "The answer to this question is "
and then have the LLM finish the answer. I did this with subtitle translation using llama.cpp (with Python) and had great success. Just past 5 already translated subtitles as the incomplete answer, and the LLM infallibly just continues to translate. No markdown, and usually no talkback if the subtitles contain nasty subjects like bioweapons or nuclear stuff. It just works.
Agreed, it's a real issue, but it can probably be vastly reduced by having the schema in the system prompt and by giving the model an expectation of a fixed value: no decent modern would pick a prose ligament over a provided value.
To completely squash the issue, a few cheap LoRa iterations will do the trick just fine.
Seems like all normal english words could risk the same, so would using short but random strings be even better?
Actually to me it sounds it could be benchmarked if this kind of effect exists in the first place.
"Reply with just the letter A, B, or C."
There, I fixed your problem.
A fundamental benefit of LLMs over Jev is that you can use test-time compute to improve the accuracy. Jev might eventually evolve to use test-time compute, but the formulation seems to more elusive to me than for LLMs.
Isn't that effectively the same as the blog post? You are just pushing the token filter to the sampling step.
That's the approach that daseinlabs/open-jev takes, in contrast to the above, which is what TheoLeeCJ/openjev and ekzhang/openjev-sglang do
The whole point is the quantified output. If you just ask an LLM to type out its confidence "manually", it'll make up some nonsense. The logprob numbers are more reliable.
I got this technique to work extremely reliably last year. However there were a bunch of caveats: 1) Firstly, you must institute a check that the multiple choice tokens dominate the output distribution. They should sum to 95% or more, ideally 99%, or the LLM is not following instructions properly. This is also the problem with constrained decoding - if the LLM really doesn't want to output a valid answer, the one you extract will not be high quality. 2) You need to ask it multiple times, permuting which option corresponds to which letter, and average the results. LLMs are surprisingly biased towards picking "A", especially if they're otherwise not sure. 3) For the same reason, performance improves if you frame the prompt as if it were the middle of a quiz. "Question 1" carries baggage that "Question 12" doesn't. 4) You must be exceedingly careful with tokenization.
But when all was said and done, I got a general purpose A/B classifier that gave high resolution quantitative output for the cost of a couple dozen tokens ingested and a couple inference passes.