arXiv:2605. 27752v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Is verbalized confidence better calibrated than token likelihood?
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:2605. 27752v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence.
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.
The paper investigates whether confidence signals from fine‑tuned large language models can improve extractive question answering that relies heavily on retrieval. Experiments on four 7‑9B model families show that retrieval alone recovers 92–99.8% of the best possible accuracy, leaving little room for confidence‑based routing or adaptation to help. The sequence‑likelihood confidence metric, even after recalibration or temperature scaling, fails to provide a statistically significant benefit across different correctness criteria and answer lengths, and the study ultimately offers a set of pre‑specified negatives with explicit dependencies as its main contribution.
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...
The paper investigates whether language models’ self-reported confidence is meaningful without additional training. By evaluating three training‑free signals—direct verbalization, post‑hoc probability estimates, and agreement across multiple generations—on 100 TriviaQA questions, the authors find that direct verbalization alone achieves high AUROC scores (0.956 and 0.937) for correctness prediction, while agreement-based methods perform noticeably worse. Re‑eliciting confidence for the same answers shows modest score shifts and occasional decision flips, and an audit of biography claims reveals only a small confidence gap between supported and contradicted statements.
arXiv:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.