arXiv:2507.21931v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce plausible but poorly-calibrated answers, limiting their reliability on reasoning-intensive tasks....
By Carel van Niekerk, Renato Vukovic, Benjamin Ruppik, Hsien-chin Lin, Shutong Feng, Milica Ga\v{s}i\'c
arXiv:2606. 04503v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has greatly advanced large reasoning models (LRMs), but it requires timely training on a huge fully-annotated dataset.
By Guangcheng Zhu, Shenzhi Yang, Haobo Wang, Xing Zheng, Yingfan MA, Xuening Feng, Zhongqi Chen, Bowen Song, Weiqiang Wang, Gang Chen
arXiv:2608. 15400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are notorious for struggling with assessing their own uncertainty, detecting knowledge conflicts, or recognizing when problems exceed their expertise; such limitations inevitably undermine reliability and trust in LLMs.
By Charles Courchaine, Ricky J. Sethi, Hefei Qiu
The study trains ten open‑weight large language models (LLMs) to predict their own accuracy on factual multiple‑choice questions before answering. Results show that the models’ confidence signals split into two distinct patterns: early in training, confidence aligns with output consistency (how concentrated the answer distribution is), while later, it aligns with true accuracy but only on data similar to the training set. This indicates that calibration training may not universally teach LLMs to detect their own errors.
By Nicolas Yax, Stefano Palminteri, Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
arXiv:2607. 01612v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training large language models (LLMs) with reinforcement learning (RL) has significantly advanced their performance on reasoning and question-answering tasks.
By Xuqing Yang, Yi Yuan, Shanzhe Lei, Xuhong Wang
arXiv:2509.24988v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Generating accurate and calibrated confidence estimates is critical for deploying LLMs in high-stakes or user-facing applications, and remain...
By Hanqi Xiao, Vaidehi Patil, Hyunji Lee, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Mohit Bansal
arXiv:2603.22161v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Metacognition -- assessing the quality of one's own cognitive performance -- guides adaptive behavior across species. Substantial research demonstr...
By Dharshan Kumaran, Nathaniel Daw, Simon Osindero, Petar Veli\v{c}kovi\'c, Viorica Patraucean
arXiv:2606. 00869v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become central to LLM reasoning, but its outcome-level rewards can make models more willing to give confident answers when evidence or reasoning is unreliable.
By Weitao Li, Hao Zhou, Xuanyu Lei, Fandong Meng, Yuanhang Liu, Jingyi Ren, Ante Wang, Xiaolong Wang, Yuanchi Zhang, Fuwen Luo, Guangwen Yang, Lin Gan, Weizhi Ma, Yang Liu
arXiv:2603.17839v4 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Verbal confidence -- prompting LLMs to state their confidence as a number or category -- is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from...
By Dharshan Kumaran, Arthur Conmy, Federico Barbero, Simon Osindero, Viorica Patraucean, Petar Veli\v{c}kovi\'c
The paper investigates whether a frozen large language model can be personalized to individual users via prompt-space meta‑learning. Using the Muse framework, the authors evolve a shared adaptation prompt across a meta‑train user population and test it zero‑shot on over 200 held‑out users in two personalization benchmarks (LaMP‑2 and LaMP‑3). The results show that Muse does not outperform its un‑evolved seed prompt or a control that trains on mismatched user‑support pairs, and it is outperformed by simple few‑shot retrieval on the rating task. The authors attribute this failure to a meta‑objective collapse, where the validation objective is invariant to genuine user‑support correspondence, leading to over‑optimization of instruction polish rather than transferable adaptation.
By Liam Byrne, David Dylan, Orla Fitzgerald, Eoin Doyle, Ciara Nolan, Padraig Lynch, Sinead Gallagher
The paper introduces XConf, an experiential confidence estimator that augments a language model’s current inference with a record of its past graded episodes. By recalling similar past tasks and reflecting on past outcomes, XConf generates confidence scores without accessing logits or updating weights, achieving superior discrimination and calibration across diverse benchmarks. The method demonstrates significant gains in selective prediction, improving success rates on agent tasks by up to 8.7 points.
By Caiqi Zhang, Xiaochen Zhu, Chengzu Li, Yulong Chen, Dharshan Kumaran, Nigel Collier
arXiv:2608. 13760v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Which reasoning behaviors are associated with correct answers in reasoning models, and does reasoning-oriented training amplify those behaviors?
By Jean de Dieu Nyandwi, Leena Mathur, Yonatan Bisk, Robert Hawkins, Graham Neubig