arXiv AI By Arijit Dey, Bhartendu Kumar, Ramya Hebbalaguppe, Khuushi Maheshwari

Are You Sure Your LLM Is Sure? Repairing and Auditing Confidence

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces RADAR, a framework for repairing and auditing confidence scores in large language models (LLMs). It separates confidence repair from deployment decisions and from error auditing, proposing Probe‑Anchored Isotonic Calibration (PAIC) for monotone mapping and a prompt‑clustered kernel test for detecting residual errors. Experiments across checkpoints and benchmarks show that richer predictors can improve confidence estimation, but projecting back to a scalar score can lose gains, and lower prediction risk does not always lead to better review decisions.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 16

Fine-grained Approaches for Confidence Calibration of LLMs in Automated Code Revision

The paper investigates how to improve confidence calibration for large language models (LLMs) used in automated code revision (ACR). It proposes applying local Platt-scaling to three fine-grained confidence scores, rather than the conventional global method, and demonstrates that this approach consistently reduces calibration error across multiple tasks, metrics, and model sizes. The study shows that fine-grained calibration, especially when combined with global scaling, yields more reliable confidence estimates for ACR tasks.

By Hong Yi Lin, Chunhua Liu, Haoyu Gao, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Christoph Treude
arXiv AI
Sep 2

Counterfactual Fragility Certificates: Exposing High-Confidence Brittleness under Structured Evidence Failure

The paper introduces Counterfactual Fragility Certificates (CFC), a model‑agnostic audit protocol that maps each prediction to an evidence‑failure trajectory, summarizing it with metrics such as greedy flip budget, margin‑collapse area, degradation thresholds, and fragility dominance score. CFC is shown to identify brittle high‑confidence predictions on seven tabular benchmarks with an AUROC of 0.915, outperforming existing scalar scores by up to +0.405. The method remains effective across various perturbation and review‑budget scenarios, and can also inform fragility‑aware regularization and temperature correction.

By Filippo Cenacchi, Longbing Cao, Runze Yang
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 15

The geometry of AI validation: From structural blindness to reusable audits

The paper investigates how AI systems that perform best‑of‑n search require different validation strategies as the search width changes. It shows that auditing only small search widths leaves a gap in reliability estimates for larger widths, and proposes retaining candidate ranks and truth labels to estimate reliability across all widths up to N. The authors derive theoretical bounds on the minimax mean‑squared error, design procedures that achieve these bounds, and demonstrate that a shared audit can significantly reduce maximum error across many widths in practical CodeRM pools.

By Ricardo Fitas
arXiv AI
Sep 18

Correct Now, Insufficient Later: Auditing Update Sufficiency in Context Compression

The paper investigates how memory systems can answer a current query correctly yet fail to retain distinctions needed for later updates. Using a paired‑history audit, the authors evaluate 24 history pairs across six synthetic mechanisms and two model backends, achieving perfect reveal accuracy on DeepSeek and high accuracy on GLM. Record‑level audits reveal specific failures in structured reveal memories and frontier late‑reference adequacy, and the authors test a label‑equivariant repair that only partially restores correctness.

By Guangzhe Zhang