arXiv:2511. 21140v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as scalable evaluators of model responses in lieu of human annotators.
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
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.
arXiv:2605. 15416v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Jung et al.
arXiv:2608. 19323v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is essential for the safe deployment of large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2504.18346v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been transformative across many domains. However, hallucination, i.e., confidently outputting incorrect inf...
arXiv:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.
The paper argues that traditional global calibration metrics, such as Expected Calibration Error and Brier Score, are confounded by differences in model accuracy when comparing large language models. It introduces ACE, an accuracy‑controlled evaluation framework that offers Instance‑Aligned, Distribution‑Aligned, and Candidate‑Aligned views to provide fairer cross‑model comparisons. Experiments across various benchmarks reveal that many reported calibration advantages disappear after accuracy control and that model rankings often reverse, indicating that raw global metrics are unreliable for cross‑model calibration assessment.
The paper introduces a Calibrated Reflection approach to improve confidence estimation in Large Language Models (LLMs). It combines structured reasoning with a distance‑aware calibration technique, featuring a Maximum Confidence Selection method, a reflection‑based prompting mechanism, and an ordinal‑aware calibration strategy. Experiments on datasets such as HelpSteer2, Llama T‑REx, and a proprietary conversational set show the method works for both conversational and fact‑based classification tasks.
arXiv:2609.24516v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these s...
arXiv:2601. 21817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
arXiv:2605. 11954v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science as scalable measurement tools for converting unstructured text into variables that can enter standard empirical designs.