Asking Is Not Enough: Protocol Sensitivity in LLM Confidence Calibration

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27752v2
• Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:50:34 GMT
• Title: Asking Is Not Enough: Protocol Sensitivity in LLM Confidence Calibration
• Abstract summary: LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence.<n>We vary the measurement axes that define the verbalized-vs-token comparison.<n>We argue that both confidence signals should be treated as protocol-dependent behavioral measurements.
• Score: 3.450547277166974
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence. These signals are sometimes treated as direct readouts of model uncertainty, but their comparison depends on measurement choices that are rarely made explicit. In the main analysis, we hold the verbalized-confidence elicitation fixed: a single prompt template, probability scale, and output format. We then vary the measurement axes that define the verbalized-vs-token comparison: which answer string receives the token-probability score, how that score is read from the answer tokens, and under which conditioning context it is measured. We evaluate this design on four QA benchmarks across three open 7--8B base/Instruct model families, with larger Qwen2.5 variants as same-family robustness checks. The resulting comparison is sensitive to these choices: conditioning context changes the sign or magnitude of the ECE gap across settings, token readout produces smaller but still sign-moving changes, and changing the ECE estimator has little effect. Under the default generated-answer, bare-context protocol, Instruct settings are close to parity rather than showing a large calibration gain for verbalized confidence. In a separate supplied-answer analysis, surface-plausible wrong answers receive nearly the same confidence as supplied gold answers, suggesting that verbalized confidence also reflects answer plausibility and provenance rather than correctness alone. We argue that both confidence signals should be treated as protocol-dependent behavioral measurements, and provide a reporting checklist covering elicitation provenance, scored answer, token-probability readout, and conditioning context.

Related papers

• Claim-Level Confidence Calibration for Reliable Decision Making with Large Language Models [7.714704554667688]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains.<n>LLMs often hallucinate and express confidence that is misaligned with factual correctness.<n>We study claim-level confidence calibration as a decision-relevant uncertainty signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T16:09:54Z)
• DirEAG: Dirichlet Evidence Aggregation for Calibrating Verbalized Confidence in Mathematical Reasoning [2.867517731896504]
  Black-box verbalized confidence is difficult to calibrate in large language models.<n>We propose DirEAG, a Dirichlet Evidence Aggregation method that converts each elicited answer-confidence observation into calibrated soft evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T03:48:25Z)
• Reported Confidence in LLMs Tracks Commitment More Than Correctness [0.7783842564949857]
  Confidence is an estimate of the probability that a chosen answer is correct.<n>We test this with a two-stage abstention paradigm from the neuroscience of perceptual decision making.<n> verbal confidence predicted the commit/abstain decision substantially better than whether the answer was correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-28T16:39:18Z)
• CaliDist: Calibrating Large Language Models via Behavioral Robustness to Distraction [51.56484100374058]
  Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's behavioral robustness.<n>We introduce textscCaliDist, a novel post-hoc calibration approach that directly measures and penalizes a model's susceptibility to distraction.<n>textscCaliDist consistently achieves lower Expected Error (ECE) and Brier Score compared with strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T07:27:53Z)
• A Semantic-Sampling Framework for Evaluating Calibration in Open-Ended Question Answering [19.55210880950831]
  Expected measures whether a model's predicted confidence aligns with its empirical accuracy, and is central to the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce Sem-ECE, a calibration evaluation framework for open-ended question answering (QA)<n>We study two estimators within framework: Sem$$-ECE, the same-sample self-consistency score, and Sem$$-ECE, a held-out variant that separates answer selection from confidence evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T19:53:49Z)
• What Single-Prompt Accuracy Misses: A Multi-Variant Reliability Audit of Language Models [0.0]
  Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter.<n>We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks.<n>We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion.<n>Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T20:05:08Z)
• 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)
• CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
  We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• Mind the Gap: A Closer Look at Tokenization for Multiple-Choice Question Answering with LLMs [16.357595595062946]
  There is no consensus on how to tokenize the space following the colon, often overlooked as a trivial choice.<n>Surprisingly, we are able to recommend one specific strategy -- tokenizing the space together with the answer letter.<n>Our findings underscore the importance of careful evaluation design and highlight the need for standardized, transparent evaluation protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T14:47:58Z)
• 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)
• On Verbalized Confidence Scores for LLMs [25.160810008907397]
  Uncertainty quantification for large language models (LLMs) can establish more human trust into their responses.<n>This work focuses on asking the LLM itself to verbalize its uncertainty with a confidence score as part of its output tokens.<n>We assess the reliability of verbalized confidence scores with respect to different datasets, models, and prompt methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T11:10:36Z)
• LACIE: Listener-Aware Finetuning for Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models [69.68379406317682]
  We introduce a listener-aware finetuning method (LACIE) to calibrate implicit and explicit confidence markers. We show that LACIE models the listener, considering not only whether an answer is right, but whether it will be accepted by a listener. We find that training with LACIE results in 47% fewer incorrect answers being accepted while maintaining the same level of acceptance for correct answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T17:16:38Z)
• Uncertainty in Language Models: Assessment through Rank-Calibration [65.10149293133846]
  Language Models (LMs) have shown promising performance in natural language generation. It is crucial to correctly quantify their uncertainty in responding to given inputs. We develop a novel and practical framework, termed $Rank$-$Calibration$, to assess uncertainty and confidence measures for LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T02:31:05Z)

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.