The study compares two ways of obtaining predictions from language models fine‑tuned on customer behavior: scoring answer tokens directly versus generating a written rationale and then scoring the resulting answer. Across 13 model‑domain cells covering four retail tasks, scored readouts consistently rank outcomes more accurately than generated readouts, with an AUC improvement ranging from 1.5 to 14.5 points. The authors also find that a third readout—eliciting a probability before any verdict—improves calibration but only when outcome rates are represented in training, and they recommend using generated rationales for interpretability while relying on scored heads for ranking.
arXiv:2608.21766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Both capability and safety benchmarks rest upon the assumption that the behavior of language models undergoing a test is informative about their beha...
arXiv:2606. 24281v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reasoning language models are increasingly asked not only to answer difficult questions, but also to estimate their likelihood of success.
arXiv:2508. 14390v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often express verbal confidence that is poorly aligned with actual correctness, limiting their reliability in safety-critical applications.
A 0.6B language model consistently answers YES to 1,200 logical tests, yet its behavior shows no discrimination. Linear probes reveal the correct verdict with high AUC (0.96) and transfer to unseen structures, but a single scalar readout fails due to a saturated decision threshold offset by +4.6 σ. Adjusting this threshold restores behavior accuracy from 50 % to 81 % and improves higher‑scale models, demonstrating that miscalibrated readouts, not hidden knowledge loss, drive performance gaps.
arXiv:2605. 27752v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence.
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.
arXiv:2606. 12117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark scores often misrepresent a large language model's (LLM's) knowledge, because they rely, e.
arXiv:2606. 05180v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated scoring models are increasingly used to assign rubric-based quality ratings to complex language performances, including classroom transcripts, yet they typically provide little insight into why a particular score is produced.
The paper argues that verbalized confidence—once viewed as overconfident and coarse—has become the preferred soft‑scoring method for LLM‑as‑a‑Judge on top‑tier proprietary models released after 2025. Experiments on SummEval, AggreFact, and HelpSteer2 across up to 18 LLMs show that log‑probabilities are no longer the best signal, and that adding an overconfidence advisory and self‑debate further improves calibration and robustness. The authors note that these enhancements incur little accuracy loss on post‑2025 models but do affect pre‑2025 ones, highlighting a compatibility shift in how confidence should be measured.
arXiv:2606. 05799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's {\em behavioral robustness} to irrelevant or misleading information.
arXiv:2609.13288v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Video-language models can answer multiple-choice questions with high confidence yet be wrong. We study whether answer-level reliability scores can be i...
The paper investigates how benchmark contamination—leakage of test items into training data—affects large language model (LLM) leaderboards. By comparing original test items with semantically equivalent paraphrases, the authors measure contamination as a violation of anchor-item invariance and find that it inflates absolute scores but rarely changes model rankings. Across 47 public models and 74 finetuned models on four benchmarks, the rank correlation between standard and paraphrase-controlled leaderboards is 0.997, with only a handful of cases showing differential contamination that could alter rankings.