arXiv AI By Yuyang Dai, Yuxia Wang

Rescaling Confidence: What Scale Design Reveals About LLM Metacognition

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2603. 09309v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Verbalized confidence, in which LLMs report a numerical certainty score, is widely used to estimate uncertainty in black-box settings, yet the confidence scale itself (typically 0--100) is rarely examined.

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 21

How do LLMs Compute Verbal Confidence

arXiv:2603.17839v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Verbal confidence -- prompting LLMs to state their confidence as a number or category -- is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from...

By Dharshan Kumaran, Arthur Conmy, Federico Barbero, Simon Osindero, Viorica Patraucean, Petar Veli\v{c}kovi\'c
arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

"very likely" Means "uncertain"? How LLMs Diverge from Humans in Linguistic Uncertainty Quantification

The paper examines how large language models (LLMs) express uncertainty compared to humans, noting that humans use verbal markers like "possible" or "likely" to convey metacognitive awareness. By curating a corpus of human uncertainty markers and benchmarking LLMs against it, the authors find that LLMs encode these markers with numerical levels that differ substantially from human usage. They introduce METHODNAME, an optimization-based algorithm that learns an optimal uncertainty profile over verbal markers directly from LLM outputs, enabling a direct comparison of confidence semantics and revealing systematic disparities in verbal expressions.

By Jinhao Duan, Zicheng Liu, Zijie Liu, Kaidi Xu, Tianlong Chen
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 11

Rethinking Verbalized Confidence for LLM-as-a-Judge: A Compatibility Shift on Post-2025 Proprietary Models

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.

By Yu-Chung Hsiao