Large language models have achieved impressive few-shot performance on a wide variety of tasks. However, in many settings, users require confidence estimates for model predictions. While traditional classifiers produce scores for each label, language models instead produce scores for the generation which may not be well calibrated. We compare generations across diverse prompts and show that these can be used to create confidence scores. By utilizing more prompts we can get more precise confidence estimates and use response diversity as a proxy for confidence. We evaluate this approach across ten multiple-choice question-answering datasets using three models: T0, FLAN-T5, and GPT-3. In addition to analyzing multiple human written prompts, we automatically generate more prompts using a language model in order to produce finer-grained confidence estimates. Our method produces more calibrated confidence estimates compared to the log probability of the answer to a single prompt. These improvements could benefit users who rely on prediction confidence for integration into a larger system or in decision-making processes.

Official reports of hate crimes in the US are under-reported relative to the actual number of such incidents. Further, despite statistical approximations, there are no official reports from a large number of US cities regarding incidents of hate. Here, we first demonstrate that event extraction and multi-instance learning, applied to a corpus of local news articles, can be used to predict instances of hate crime. We then use the trained model to detect incidents of hate in cities for which the FBI lacks statistics. Lastly, we train models on predicting homicide and kidnapping, compare the predictions to FBI reports, and establish that incidents of hate are indeed under-reported, compared to other types of crimes, in local press.