arXiv:2608. 13430v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Instruction-tuned language models achieve strong performance across a range of generation tasks, but have also recently been shown to exhibit verbalized overconfidence.
arXiv:2609.07309v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Robustness evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains a critical challenge, particularly in assessing their sensitivity to perturbations in i...
arXiv:2604.08974v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Uncertainty quantification techniques measure confidence in language model outputs to support critical applications like hallucination detection an...
The paper investigates how large language models balance instruction-following with pattern completion when the two objectives conflict. By creating dialogues where a user instruction to act in a target way T is opposed by assistant turns that demonstrate a competing pattern P, the authors measure instruction-following rates across 13 models and 16 instructions over up to 50 turns. Results show wide variability (1%–99%) in instruction adherence, with robustness influenced by instruction content, output format, and chain-of-thought reasoning, but overall instruction-following remains brittle under induction pressure.
arXiv:2608.28382v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Users often ask large language models (LLMs) to report how confident they are, but it is unclear whether such linguistic confidence tracks the model's...
The paper investigates whether language models’ self-reported confidence is meaningful without additional training. By evaluating three training‑free signals—direct verbalization, post‑hoc probability estimates, and agreement across multiple generations—on 100 TriviaQA questions, the authors find that direct verbalization alone achieves high AUROC scores (0.956 and 0.937) for correctness prediction, while agreement-based methods perform noticeably worse. Re‑eliciting confidence for the same answers shows modest score shifts and occasional decision flips, and an audit of biography claims reveals only a small confidence gap between supported and contradicted statements.
The paper introduces a framework for assessing how well language models (LMs) calibrate their confidence when answering relational knowledge questions. It evaluates three types of confidence—intrinsic, paraphrase consistency, and linguistic—across 21 causal and 8 masked LMs, finding that most models, especially masked ones, are overconfident. The study shows that confidence estimates that account for rephrasing inconsistencies and increasing answer options lead to better calibration.
The paper introduces CoDIT, a contrastive decoding technique that separates instruction-following behavior from pre-trained world knowledge in large language models. By generating responses that emphasize post-training instruction capabilities while suppressing shared pre-trained knowledge, CoDIT creates instruction-tuning datasets that lead to consistently better model performance than directly generated responses or existing public datasets. The authors also provide theoretical and empirical evidence that CoDIT effectively distills instruction-tuning knowledge from model parameters into text, facilitating cross-architecture transfer.
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...
The paper evaluates how language models of different sizes self-assess their confidence on question‑answering tasks across general and specialized domains. It finds that while accuracy drops for smaller models and more specialized tasks, the reliability of self‑evaluated confidence signals remains largely stable. Consequently, even less capable models can provide reasonable confidence estimates, making them suitable for resource‑constrained applications.
PROOF is a benchmark that profiles the reliability of object-level facts in instruction-tuned language models by converting a frozen Wikidata snapshot into 18,486 English multiple-choice questions grounded in 11,779 semantic facts across 101 classes, 392 properties, and 14 domains. Each question includes an explicit "I don't know" option, a "No correct option" control, and nine controlled formulations, with 1,849 questions designed as no-correct-option traps. The study evaluates 18 open-weight model deployments on 166,374 prompts, revealing wide variability in factual accuracy, sensitivity to wording changes, and the impact of decoder perturbations.
arXiv:2607. 07626v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reliable confidence estimation is essential for deploying large language models (LLMs) in confidence-aware systems, where downstream decisions such as retrieval, tool use, and adaptive computation depend on accurately estimating answer reliability.
arXiv:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.