  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable achievements in natural
language processing tasks, producing high-quality outputs. However, LLMs still
exhibit limitations, including the generation of factually incorrect
information. In safety-critical applications, it is important to assess the
confidence of LLM-generated content to make informed decisions. Retrieval
Augmented Language Models (RALMs) is relatively a new area of research in NLP.
RALMs offer potential benefits for scientific NLP tasks, as retrieved
documents, can serve as evidence to support model-generated content. This
inclusion of evidence enhances trustworthiness, as users can verify and explore
the retrieved documents to validate model outputs. Quantifying uncertainty in
RALM generations further improves trustworthiness, with retrieved text and
confidence scores contributing to a comprehensive and reliable model for
scientific applications. However, there is limited to no research on UQ for
RALMs, particularly in scientific contexts. This study aims to address this gap
by conducting a comprehensive evaluation of UQ in RALMs, focusing on scientific
tasks. This research investigates how uncertainty scores vary when scientific
knowledge is incorporated as pretraining and retrieval data and explores the
relationship between uncertainty scores and the accuracy of model-generated
outputs. We observe that an existing RALM finetuned with scientific knowledge
as the retrieval data tends to be more confident in generating predictions
compared to the model pretrained only with scientific knowledge. We also found
that RALMs are overconfident in their predictions, making inaccurate
predictions more confidently than accurate ones. Scientific knowledge provided
either as pretraining or retrieval corpus does not help alleviate this issue.
We released our code, data and dashboards at https://github.com/pnnl/EXPERT2.
