Reliable uncertainty quantification (UQ) is essential for ensuring trustworthy downstream use of large language models, especially when they are deployed in decision-support and other knowledge-intensive applications. Model certainty can be estimated from token logits, with derived probability and entropy values offering insight into performance on the prompt task. However, this approach may be inadequate for probabilistic scenarios, where the probabilities of token outputs are expected to align with the theoretical probabilities of the possible outcomes. We investigate the relationship between token certainty and alignment with theoretical probability distributions in well-defined probabilistic scenarios. Using GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek-Chat, we evaluate model responses to ten prompts involving probability (e.g., roll a six-sided die), both with and without explicit probability cues in the prompt (e.g., roll a fair six-sided die). We measure two dimensions: (1) response validity with respect to scenario constraints, and (2) alignment between token-level output probabilities and theoretical probabilities. Our results indicate that, while both models achieve perfect in-domain response accuracy across all prompt scenarios, their token-level probability and entropy values consistently diverge from the corresponding theoretical distributions.

From document summarization to code generation, chabots have disrupted various aspects of scientific research and writing. While chabots are useful research resources for ideation, information retrieval, and editing, their generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) models’ underlying knowledge infrastructure is opaque. This has raised questions about the reliability of generative chatbot responses, as GPT models are known to respond with misleading information that appears to be accurate. Prior research has investigated the utility of OpenAI’s public chatbot, ChatGPT, to generate reliable bibliographic information with a focus on small-scale medical-related scientific facts. We present an expanded study that analyzes GPT-4’s ability to accurately identify 1,326 scientific facts and link them to academic sources. Using both the API and UI service, we experimented with open-ended and close-ended prompts to establish an understanding of GPT-4’s general ability at this domain-specific task, as well as study the real-world scenario of an average user interacting with ChatGPT using its UI. GPT-4 accurately identified 96% of the scientific facts and generated relevant and existent academic citations with 78% accuracy. Using the claims that GPT-4 mislabeled and provided incorrect sources via the API, we prompt two public GPTs customized for academic writing to evaluate if they correctly label the scientific claims and provide accurate sources. We find that these GPTs are able to accurately label 38% of the mislabeled claims, with 95% of the corresponding citations being accurate and relevant.

Automatically organizing scholarly literature is a necessary and challenging task. By assigning scientific research publications key concepts, researchers, policymakers, and the general public are able to search for and discover relevant research literature. The organization of scientific research evolves with new discoveries and publications, requiring an up-to-date and scalable text classification model. Additionally, scientific research publications benefit from multi-label classification, particularly with more fine-grained sub-domains. Prior work has focused on classifying scientific publications from one research area (e.g., computer science), referencing static concept descriptions, and implementing an English-only classification model. We propose a multi-label classification model that can be implemented in non-English languages, across all of scientific literature, with updatable concept descriptions.

Word embeddings learn implicit biases from linguistic regularities captured by word co-occurrence statistics. By extending methods that quantify human-like biases in word embeddings, we introduce ValNorm, a novel intrinsic evaluation task and method to quantify the valence dimension of affect in human-rated word sets from social psychology. We apply ValNorm on static word embeddings from seven languages (Chinese, English, German, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish) and from historical English text spanning 200 years. ValNorm achieves consistently high accuracy in quantifying the valence of non-discriminatory, non-social group word sets. Specifically, ValNorm achieves a Pearson correlation of r=0.88 for human judgment scores of valence for 399 words collected to establish pleasantness norms in English. In contrast, we measure gender stereotypes using the same set of word embeddings and find that social biases vary across languages. Our results indicate that valence associations of non-discriminatory, non-social group words represent widely-shared associations, in seven languages and over 200 years.