The paper argues that calibration—how well a language model’s confidence aligns with its actual correctness—should be a standard evaluation metric for large language models (LLMs). It notes that while calibration metrics exist, they are rarely applied outside specialized NLP subfields, leading to unverified confidence scores in new models, datasets, and benchmarks. The authors highlight the risks of miscalibration both at deployment (overconfident errors causing harm) and in research workflows (affecting LLM-as-a-judge, synthetic data generation, and active learning). They call for every NLP subfield to pair its primary performance metric with a calibration score, treating calibration as an essential property of every model.
By Mario Sanz-Guerrero, Katharina von der Wense
The paper presents the first large‑scale benchmark for uncertainty quantification (UQ) calibration in long‑form scientific question answering, evaluating four UQ methods on 685,000 responses from up to 20 large language models across seven datasets. It shows that instruction tuning leads to token‑level probability polarization, undermining token‑level uncertainty signals, while reasoning model families differ in how they handle this effect. Only semantic consistency—consistency of the final answer—provides well‑calibrated outputs, demonstrating that semantic calibration remains robust in multi‑step, dependency‑rich reasoning.
By Philip M\"uller, Nicholas Popovi\v{c}, Michael F\"arber, Peter Steinbach
arXiv:2606. 09856v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) for reasoning typically focuses on deductive tasks such as mathematics and coding where correctness is verifiable.
By Liyi Zhang, Akshay K. Jagadish, Brenden M. Lake, Thomas L. Griffiths
arXiv:2510. 21891v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: To deploy large language models (LLMs) in high-stakes application domains that require substantively accurate responses to open-ended prompts, we need reliable, computationally inexpensive methods that assess the trustworthiness of long-form responses generated by LLMs.
By Dhrupad Bhardwaj, Julia Kempe, Tim G. J. Rudner
arXiv:2603. 25450v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Detecting when a language model is wrong without ground truth labels is a fundamental challenge for safe deployment.
By Matt Gorbett, Suman Jana
arXiv:2606. 05792v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: TLA+ has supported industrial verification at companies such as Amazon and Microsoft, yet writing correct TLA+ specifications from natural language still requires time and expertise, which limits adoption.
By Arslan Bisharat, Brian Ortiz, Eric Spencer, Khushboo Bhadauria, TaiNing Wang, George K. Thiruvathukal, Konstantin Laufer, Mohammed Abuhamad
arXiv:2609.10122v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across a broad range of classification settings, yet the reliability of their predictions...
By Jianzong Wang, Chuhang Liu, Botao Zhao, Zuheng Kang, Xulong Zhang, Xiaoyang Qu, Junqing Peng, Zhiewei Ye, Yayun He
arXiv:2607. 03882v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly deployed as post-hoc explainers of AI-generated outputs, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably communicate probabilistic information in natural language.
By Diego Cerda-Mardini, Sarath Chandar, Sreenath Madathil
arXiv:2606. 07822v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As language models improve and become increasingly deployed to solve a variety of tasks, trustworthiness becomes essential.
By Nishant Subramani, Palash Goyal, Yiwen Song, Mani Malek, Yuan Xue, Tomas Pfister, Hamid Palangi
As the chain-of-thought reasoning capabilities of large language models improve, evaluating and calibrating their reasoning confidence is becoming increasingly important for quantifying the uncertaint...
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled sophisticated reasoning and content generation, yet their inherent stochasticity poses significant challenges for ensuring predictive credibility. While traditional uncertainty taxonomy paradigms, such as the dichotomy of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, provide conceptual foundations, they often fail to capture the multi-component and multi-stage nature of LLM generation and struggle to evaluate the effectiveness of various Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods.
Uncertainty estimation is essential not only for the trustworthy deployment of large language models (LLMs) but also as a foundation for self-refinement in LLM generation. However, existing approaches operate at suboptimal granularities: token-level scores lack semantic coherence, while sequence-level scores fail to localize errors.