Bayesian Elicitation with LLMs: Model Size Helps, Extra "Reasoning" Doesn't Always
Luka Hobor, Mario Brcic, Mihael Kovac, Kristijan Poje

TL;DR
This study evaluates large language models' ability to perform Bayesian elicitation, revealing that larger models are more accurate but overconfident, and that additional reasoning effort does not consistently improve estimates.
Contribution
The paper demonstrates that larger LLMs produce better estimates, overconfidence is prevalent, and conformal prediction effectively calibrates their uncertainty intervals.
Findings
Larger models yield more accurate estimates.
Models are severely overconfident with low coverage.
Conformal prediction corrects overconfidence, achieving desired coverage.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as alternatives to human experts for estimating unknown quantities with associated uncertainty, a process known as Bayesian elicitation. We test this by asking eleven LLMs to estimate population statistics, such as health prevalence rates, personality trait distributions, and labor market figures, and to express their uncertainty as 95\% credible intervals. We vary each model's reasoning effort (low, medium, high) to test whether more "thinking" improves results. Our findings reveal three key results. First, larger, more capable models produce more accurate estimates, but increasing reasoning effort provides no consistent benefit. Second, all models are severely overconfident: their 95\% intervals contain the true value only 9--44\% of the time, far below the expected 95\%. Third, a statistical recalibration technique called conformal…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
