arXiv AI By Davide Mazzaccara, Leonardo Bertolazzi, Raffaella Bernardi

Different Facets of Verbalised Overconfidence: an Interpretability Study

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The study examines how the large language model Qwen3-4B exhibits overconfidence across three expressions of uncertainty—verbal epistemic markers, abstention, and numeric confidence scores—using controlled reasoning scenarios that vary logical necessity and possibility. Findings confirm a pronounced overconfidence tendency, especially when numeric scores are requested, and reveal that certainty is generated by a broad coalition of shared features while uncertainty relies on a sparse set of dedicated features. By intervening on these uncertainty features, the researchers demonstrate causal evidence of the imbalance driving overconfidence and show that this intervention can mitigate overconfident errors across different settings, languages, and an out‑of‑distribution modality task.

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
3d ago

Measuring Mechanistic Uncertainty in Large Language Models via Causal Robustness

The paper introduces mechanistic uncertainty, a measure of how stable a large language model’s internal mechanisms are when producing a response. It defines the causal robustness margin as the smallest internal intervention needed to change the output, and implements this using Jacobian Lens steering vectors. Experiments on three open‑source models and five QA datasets show that incorrect or uncertain answers have smaller margins, while correctly learned facts exhibit larger margins after training, indicating that causal robustness complements traditional output‑based uncertainty methods.

By Aneesh Komanduri, Majid Afshar, Timothy A. Miller, Yanjun Gao