Large Language Model (LLM) Uncertainty Estimation (UE) methods have become a crucial tool for detecting hallucinations in recent years. While numerous UE methods have been proposed, most existing studies evaluate them in isolated short-form QA settings using threshold-independent metrics such as AUROC or PRR. However, real-world deployment of UE methods introduces several challenges. In this work, we systematically examine four key aspects of deploying UE methods in practical settings. Specifically, we assess (1) the sensitivity of UE methods to decision threshold selection, (2) their robustness to query transformations such as typos, adversarial prompts, and prior chat history, (3) their applicability to long-form generation, and (4) strategies for handling multiple UE scores for a single query. Our evaluations on 19 UE methods reveal that most of them are highly sensitive to threshold selection when there is a distribution shift in the calibration dataset. While these methods generally exhibit robustness against previous chat history and typos, they are significantly vulnerable to adversarial prompts. Additionally, while existing UE methods can be adapted for long-form generation through various strategies, there remains considerable room for improvement. Lastly, ensembling multiple UE scores at test time provides a notable performance boost, which highlights its potential as a practical improvement strategy. Code is available at: https://github.com/duygunuryldz/uncertainty_in_the_wild.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and, at its core, reward modeling have become a crucial part of training powerful large language models (LLMs). One commonly overlooked factor in training high-quality reward models (RMs) is the effect of the base model, which is becoming more challenging to choose given the rapidly growing pool of LLMs. In this work, we present a systematic analysis of the effect of base model selection on reward modeling performance. Our results show that the performance can be improved by up to 14% compared to the most common (i.e., default) choice. Moreover, we showcase the strong statistical relation between some existing benchmarks and downstream performances. We also demonstrate that the results from a small set of benchmarks could be combined to boost the model selection (+18% on average in the top 5-10). Lastly, we illustrate the impact of different post-training steps on the final performance and explore using estimated data distributions to reduce performance prediction error.

Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) inevitably produce untruthful responses. Accurately predicting the truthfulness of these outputs is critical, especially in high-stakes settings. To accelerate research in this domain and make truthfulness prediction methods more accessible, we introduce TruthTorchLM an open-source, comprehensive Python library featuring over 30 truthfulness prediction methods, which we refer to as Truth Methods. Unlike existing toolkits such as Guardrails, which focus solely on document-grounded verification, or LM-Polygraph, which is limited to uncertainty-based methods, TruthTorchLM offers a broad and extensible collection of techniques. These methods span diverse trade-offs in computational cost, access level (e.g., black-box vs. white-box), grounding document requirements, and supervision type (self-supervised or supervised). TruthTorchLM is seamlessly compatible with both HuggingFace and LiteLLM, enabling support for locally hosted and API-based models. It also provides a unified interface for generation, evaluation, calibration, and long-form truthfulness prediction, along with a flexible framework for extending the library with new methods. We conduct an evaluation of representative truth methods on three datasets, TriviaQA, GSM8K, and FactScore-Bio.