arXiv Computation and Language By Christopher Kissling, Elena Merdjanovska, Alan Akbik

Self-Aware Knowledge Probing: Evaluating Language Models' Relational Knowledge through Confidence Calibration

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper introduces a framework for assessing how well language models (LMs) calibrate their confidence when answering relational knowledge questions. It evaluates three types of confidence—intrinsic, paraphrase consistency, and linguistic—across 21 causal and 8 masked LMs, finding that most models, especially masked ones, are overconfident. The study shows that confidence estimates that account for rephrasing inconsistencies and increasing answer options lead to better calibration.

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 Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 18

An Analysis of Training-Free Self-Reported Confidence in Language Models

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.

By Lukas Meyer, Sofia Rossi, Wei Chen, Thomas Laurent, Yiming Li
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 2

Also Small Models Can Reasonably Self-Evaluate Their Confidence

The paper evaluates how language models of different sizes self-assess their confidence on question‑answering tasks across general and specialized domains. It finds that while accuracy drops for smaller models and more specialized tasks, the reliability of self‑evaluated confidence signals remains largely stable. Consequently, even less capable models can provide reasonable confidence estimates, making them suitable for resource‑constrained applications.

By Idil Kapikiran, Thomas Decker, Thomas Runkler
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