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:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.
arXiv:2606. 07822v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As language models improve and become increasingly deployed to solve a variety of tasks, trustworthiness becomes essential.
arXiv:2608. 01460v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conformal prediction (CP) is a distribution-free framework for uncertainty quantification that has recently been adapted to large language models (LLMs), providing prediction sets with finite-sample coverage guarantees under exchangeability.
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
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: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:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.
The paper investigates whether existing AI safety benchmarks, designed for large language models, are suitable for evaluating small language models (SLMs). By testing five benchmark suites on 26 open‑source SLMs with a unified scoring rubric, the authors find that ambiguous judgments dominate, especially for complex prompts and certain architectures. This ambiguity, linked to factors like lexical density and output perplexity, undermines the reliability of aggregate leaderboards and reveals a confound between model capability and perceived safety.
arXiv:2605. 27752v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence.
arXiv:2607. 24562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models serve heterogeneous populations structured by domain, topic difficulty, and linguistic style.
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 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.