Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08064v1
• Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 23:16:50 GMT
• Title: Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations
• Authors: Yuxi Xia, Dennis Ulmer, Terra Blevins, Yihong Liu, Hinrich Schütze, Benjamin Roth,
• Abstract summary: Confidence estimation (CE) indicates how reliable the answers of large language models (LLMs) are, and can impact user trust and decision-making.<n>We present a comprehensive evaluation framework for CE that measures their confidence quality on three new aspects.<n>These include robustness of confidence against prompt perturbations, stability across semantic equivalent answers, and sensitivity to semantically different answers.
• Score: 49.84786015324238
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Confidence estimation (CE) indicates how reliable the answers of large language models (LLMs) are, and can impact user trust and decision-making. Existing work evaluates CE methods almost exclusively through calibration, examining whether stated confidence aligns with accuracy, or discrimination, whether confidence is ranked higher for correct predictions than incorrect ones. However, these facets ignore pitfalls of CE in the context of LLMs and language variation: confidence estimates should remain consistent under semantically equivalent prompt or answer variations, and should change when the answer meaning differs. Therefore, we present a comprehensive evaluation framework for CE that measures their confidence quality on three new aspects: robustness of confidence against prompt perturbations, stability across semantic equivalent answers, and sensitivity to semantically different answers. In our work, we demonstrate that common CE methods for LLMs often fail on these metrics: methods that achieve good performance on calibration or discrimination are not robust to prompt variations or are not sensitive to answer changes. Overall, our framework reveals limitations of existing CE evaluations relevant for real-world LLM use cases and provides practical guidance for selecting and designing more reliable CE methods.

Related papers

• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Uncertainty Estimation Methods in Large Language Models [1.8374839804848957]
  We evaluate four approaches for confidence estimation in large language models (LLMs)<n>We conduct experiments on four question-answering tasks using a state-of-the-art open-source LLM.<n>Our results show that each uncertainty metric captures a different facet of model confidence and that the hybrid CoCoA approach yields the best reliability overall.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T11:50:47Z)
• ConfTuner: Training Large Language Models to Express Their Confidence Verbally [58.63318088243125]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as science, law, and healthcare.<n>LLMs are often observed to generate incorrect answers with high confidence, a phenomenon known as "overconfidence"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T09:25:32Z)
• Overconfidence in LLM-as-a-Judge: Diagnosis and Confidence-Driven Solution [20.607071807794195]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as automated judges, where practical value depends on both accuracy and trustworthy, risk-aware judgments.<n>Existing approaches predominantly focus on accuracy, overlooking the necessity of well-calibrated confidence.<n>We advocate a shift from accuracy-centric evaluation to confidence-driven, risk-aware LLM-as-a-Judge systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T11:11:22Z)
• MetaFaith: Faithful Natural Language Uncertainty Expression in LLMs [66.14178164421794]
  We introduce MetaFaith, a novel prompt-based calibration approach inspired by human metacognition.<n>We show that MetaFaith robustly improves faithful calibration across diverse models and task domains, enabling up to 61% improvement in faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T17:54:08Z)
• Towards Harmonized Uncertainty Estimation for Large Language Models [22.58034272573749]
  It is essential to quantify the reliability of their generations through uncertainty estimation.<n>We propose CUE (Corrector for Uncertainty Estimation): A straightforward yet effective method that employs a lightweight model trained on data aligned with the target LLM's performance to adjust uncertainty scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T10:17:57Z)
• Uncertainty Distillation: Teaching Language Models to Express Semantic Confidence [16.311538811237536]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for factual question-answering.<n>For these verbalized expressions of uncertainty to be meaningful, they should reflect the error rates at the expressed level of confidence.<n>We propose a simple procedure, uncertainty distillation, to teach an LLM to calibrated semantic confidences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T21:29:29Z)
• MCQA-Eval: Efficient Confidence Evaluation in NLG with Gold-Standard Correctness Labels [16.300463494913593]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) require robust confidence estimation.<n>McQCA-Eval is an evaluation framework for assessing confidence measures in Natural Language Generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T05:09:29Z)
• 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)
• Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection [90.71323430635593]
  We propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each candidate answer. This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:38:26Z)
• TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness [58.721012475577716]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T21:12:14Z)

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.