Mind the Confidence Gap: Overconfidence, Calibration, and Distractor Effects in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11028v2
• Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:14:36 GMT
• Title: Mind the Confidence Gap: Overconfidence, Calibration, and Distractor Effects in Large Language Models
• Authors: Prateek Chhikara,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable proficiency in natural language tasks.<n>Overconfidence-misalignment between predicted confidence and true correctness poses significant risks in critical decision-making applications.<n>We present a comprehensive analysis on calibration in LLMs across nine LLMs and three factual Question-Answering datasets.
• Score: 0.6091702876917281
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable proficiency in natural language tasks, yet their frequent overconfidence-misalignment between predicted confidence and true correctness-poses significant risks in critical decision-making applications. We present a comprehensive analysis on calibration in LLMs across nine LLMs and three factual Question-Answering (QA) datasets, systematically comparing standard free-generation settings against structured distractor-augmented prompts. Our evaluation reveals that explicitly incorporating distractors can substantially mitigate miscalibration, achieving relative accuracy improvements up to 460% and ECE reductions up to 90%. Despite general trends, we uncover nuanced findings: large RLHF-tuned models display inherent calibration strengths but can paradoxically suffer increased miscalibration on easier queries, whereas smaller models benefit disproportionately from distractor prompts but remain significantly miscalibrated. Through detailed analyses across question types, we identify persistent calibration failures, particularly in person-based queries. We conclude with concrete recommendations-targeted fine-tuning, structured prompting, and strategic model choice-to ensure reliable, trustworthy LLM deployments.

Related papers

• SGIC: A Self-Guided Iterative Calibration Framework for RAG [45.17496149653415]
  Large language models (LLMs) capitalize on their robust in-context reasoning.<n>We present a new framework that employs uncertainty scores as a tool.<n>We also introduce an innovative approach for constructing an iterative self-calibration training set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-19T09:45:13Z)
• Verbalized Confidence Triggers Self-Verification: Emergent Behavior Without Explicit Reasoning Supervision [12.287123198288079]
  Uncertainty calibration is essential for the safe deployment of large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that supervised fine-tuning with scalar confidence labels alone suffices to elicit self-verification behavior of language models.<n>We propose a simple rethinking method that boosts performance via test-time scaling based on calibrated uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T08:56:24Z)
• Balancing Two Classifiers via A Simplex ETF Structure for Model Calibration [34.52946891778497]
  Deep neural networks (DNNs) have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance across various domains. They often face calibration issues, particularly in safety-critical applications such as autonomous driving and healthcare. Recent research has started to improve model calibration from the view of the classifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T09:09:01Z)
• Enhancing LLM Reliability via Explicit Knowledge Boundary Modeling [48.15636223774418]
  Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucination stemming from misaligned self-awareness.<n>We propose the Explicit Knowledge Boundary Modeling framework to integrate fast and slow reasoning systems to harmonize reliability and usability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T03:16:02Z)
• Self-Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models [59.861013614500024]
  This paper explores enhancing critique abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce SCRIT, a framework that trains LLMs with self-generated data to evolve their critique abilities.<n>Our analysis reveals that SCRIT's performance scales positively with data and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• The Reliability Paradox: Exploring How Shortcut Learning Undermines Language Model Calibration [5.616884466478886]
  Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have enabled significant performance gains in the field of natural language processing.<n>Recent studies have found PLMs to suffer from miscalibration, indicating a lack of accuracy in the confidence estimates provided by these models.<n>This paper investigates whether lower calibration error implies reliable decision rules for a language model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T08:04:28Z)
• Fact-Level Confidence Calibration and Self-Correction [64.40105513819272]
  We propose a Fact-Level framework that calibrates confidence to relevance-weighted correctness at the fact level. We also develop Confidence-Guided Fact-level Self-Correction ($textbfConFix$), which uses high-confidence facts within a response as additional knowledge to improve low-confidence ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T14:15:18Z)
• Epistemic Integrity in Large Language Models [10.50127599111102]
  Large language models are increasingly relied upon sources of information, but their propensity for false or misleading statements poses high risks for users and society.<n>In this paper, we confront the critical problem of miscalibration where a model's linguistic assertiveness fails to reflect its true internal certainty.<n>We introduce a new human misalignment evaluation and a novel method for measuring the linguistic assertiveness of Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-10T17:10:13Z)
• Confidence Estimation for LLM-Based Dialogue State Tracking [9.305763502526833]
  Estimation of a model's confidence on its outputs is critical for Conversational AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) We provide an exhaustive exploration of methods, including approaches proposed for open- and closed-weight LLMs. Our findings suggest that fine-tuning open-weight LLMs can result in enhanced AUC performance, indicating better confidence score calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T06:44:26Z)
• Enhancing Healthcare LLM Trust with Atypical Presentations Recalibration [20.049443396032423]
  Black-box large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in various environments. LLMs often exhibit overconfidence, leading to potential risks and misjudgments. We propose a novel method, textitAtypical presentations Recalibration, which leverages atypical presentations to adjust the model's confidence estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T03:45:35Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Revisiting Confidence Estimation: Towards Reliable Failure Prediction [53.79160907725975]
  We find a general, widely existing but actually-neglected phenomenon that most confidence estimation methods are harmful for detecting misclassification errors. We propose to enlarge the confidence gap by finding flat minima, which yields state-of-the-art failure prediction performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T11:44:14Z)
• Calibrating Large Language Models with Sample Consistency [76.23956851098598]
  We explore the potential of deriving confidence from the distribution of multiple randomly sampled model generations, via three measures of consistency. Results show that consistency-based calibration methods outperform existing post-hoc approaches. We offer practical guidance on choosing suitable consistency metrics for calibration, tailored to the characteristics of various LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T16:15:20Z)
• Multi-Perspective Consistency Enhances Confidence Estimation in Large Language Models [27.63938857490995]
  This work focuses on improving the confidence estimation of large language models. Considering the fragility of self-awareness in language models, we introduce a Multi-Perspective Consistency (MPC) method. The experimental results on eight publicly available datasets show that our MPC achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T13:37:39Z)
• Selective Learning: Towards Robust Calibration with Dynamic Regularization [79.92633587914659]
  Miscalibration in deep learning refers to there is a discrepancy between the predicted confidence and performance. We introduce Dynamic Regularization (DReg) which aims to learn what should be learned during training thereby circumventing the confidence adjusting trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T11:25:20Z)
• On the Calibration of Large Language Models and Alignment [63.605099174744865]
  Confidence calibration serves as a crucial tool for gauging the reliability of deep models. We conduct a systematic examination of the calibration of aligned language models throughout the entire construction process. Our work sheds light on whether popular LLMs are well-calibrated and how the training process influences model calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T08:57:55Z)
• Improving the Reliability of Large Language Models by Leveraging Uncertainty-Aware In-Context Learning [76.98542249776257]
  Large-scale language models often face the challenge of "hallucination" We introduce an uncertainty-aware in-context learning framework to empower the model to enhance or reject its output in response to uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T12:06:53Z)
• Two Sides of Miscalibration: Identifying Over and Under-Confidence Prediction for Network Calibration [1.192436948211501]
  Proper confidence calibration of deep neural networks is essential for reliable predictions in safety-critical tasks. Miscalibration can lead to model over-confidence and/or under-confidence. We introduce a novel metric, a miscalibration score, to identify the overall and class-wise calibration status. We use the class-wise miscalibration score as a proxy to design a calibration technique that can tackle both over and under-confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T17:59:14Z)
• Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback [91.22679548111127]
  A trustworthy real-world prediction system should produce well-calibrated confidence scores. We show that verbalized confidences emitted as output tokens are typically better-calibrated than the model's conditional probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:12:33Z)
• On Calibrating Semantic Segmentation Models: Analyses and An Algorithm [51.85289816613351]
  We study the problem of semantic segmentation calibration. Model capacity, crop size, multi-scale testing, and prediction correctness have impact on calibration. We propose a simple, unifying, and effective approach, namely selective scaling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-22T22:05:16Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.