When Models Know When They Do Not Know: Calibration, Cascading, and Cleaning
arXiv:2601. 07965v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: When a model knows when it does not know, many possibilities emerge.
The paper introduces Calibration-Aware Uncertainty Cascades (CAUC), a post‑hoc framework that calibrates each model’s confidence independently and uses these calibrated scores to decide when to accept an early prediction, invoke a stronger model, or combine outputs. CAUC establishes a common reliability scale across heterogeneous models, decoupling deployment policies from specific model pools or budgets. Experiments on six language benchmarks show a 1.9% relative accuracy gain over strong‑model‑only inference while cutting strong‑model calls by about 47%, and on image classification it maintains or improves performance while reducing GFLOPs by up to 57%.
arXiv:2601. 07965v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: When a model knows when it does not know, many possibilities emerge.
arXiv:2607. 20481v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Local-cloud collaboration is a practical way to deploy large language models under resource constraints, but existing methods often rely on trained routers or collaboration-aware finetuning that tie routing behavior to a particular operating regime.
arXiv:2608. 09768v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A prediction that is both confident and wrong is a critical reliability failure because it can bypass abstention and human review precisely when the model is mistaken.
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.
arXiv:2605. 30188v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reliable probability estimates are critical in many machine learning applications, yet modern classifiers are often poorly calibrated.
arXiv:2606. 20544v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Calibration aligns a model's predictive uncertainty with the frequencies of its empirical outcomes and is important for understanding and trusting reported probabilities.
Vision-language-action models (VLAs) combine vision-language backbones with expressive generative action heads trained via flow matching on large-scale robotic datasets. Despite their strong empirical performance in robotic manipulation, VLAs lack mechanisms to quantify confidence in their predictions and to detect when their actions may be unreliable.
arXiv:2606. 18043v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language-action models (VLAs) combine vision-language backbones with expressive generative action heads trained via flow matching on large-scale robotic datasets.
Reliable confidence estimates are essential in semantic segmentation, especially in safety-critical settings where overconfident errors can mislead downstream decisions. Yet modern segmentation models often remain miscalibrated.
arXiv:2608. 05064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings, where the key deployment question is not only what a model answers but when it should defer to a human.
arXiv:2605. 22949v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Foundation-model pools are increasingly used as black-box responders in coordinated systems where a coordinator must decide which response to trust.
arXiv:2608. 19807v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth.