Large Language Models Are Overconfident in Their Own Responses

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03437v1
• Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 10:20:56 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Are Overconfident in Their Own Responses
• Abstract summary: We investigate the mechanisms driving this miscalibration by decoupling the effects of the post-training algorithm and the chat format.<n>We find that while instruction tuning fundamentally harms calibration, the chat template aggravates the issue through an "ownership bias"<n>We propose a simple inference-time strategy: framing the model's answer as user input during confidence elicitation.
• Score: 17.59290402750217
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Prior work has shown that instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) are less well calibrated than their base pre-trained counterparts. However, little is known about the frequently used chat template's effect on the calibration of conversational LLMs. In this work, we investigate the mechanisms driving this miscalibration by decoupling the effects of the post-training algorithm and the chat format. We find that, while instruction tuning fundamentally harms calibration, the chat template aggravates the issue through an "ownership bias" -- models are significantly more confident in their own answers than in identical answers provided by a user. Extensive experiments across six recent open-weight LLMs, three benchmarks, and three confidence elicitation methods show that models assign up to 26% higher confidence to their own responses. Leveraging this insight, we propose a simple inference-time strategy: framing the model's answer as user input during confidence elicitation. This approach significantly reduces overconfidence and improves calibration by up to 26% without the need for retraining, narrowing the gap between base and instruction-tuned models.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• Calibrating Uncertainty Quantification of Multi-Modal LLMs using Grounding [48.92310906093414]
  We introduce a novel approach for calibrating uncertainty quantification (UQ) tailored for multi-modal large language models (LLMs)<n>We leverage cross-modal consistency in addition to self-consistency to improve the calibration of the multi-modal models.<n>We evaluate the proposed approach across multiple multi-modal tasks, such as medical question answering (Slake) and visual question answering (VQAv2), considering multi-modal models such as LLaVA-Med and LLaVA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T19:19:21Z)
• Mind the Confidence Gap: Overconfidence, Calibration, and Distractor Effects in Large Language Models [0.6091702876917281]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T07:46:09Z)
• 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)
• Graph-based Confidence Calibration for Large Language Models [22.394717844099684]
  We propose using an auxiliary learning model to assess response correctness based on the self-consistency of multiple outputs generated by the large language models.<n>Our method builds a consistency graph to represent the agreement among multiple responses and uses a graph neural network (GNN) to estimate the likelihood that each response is correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T20:36:44Z)
• 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)
• Calibrating the Confidence of Large Language Models by Eliciting Fidelity [52.47397325111864]
  Large language models optimized with techniques like RLHF have achieved good alignment in being helpful and harmless. Post-alignment, these language models often exhibit overconfidence, where the expressed confidence does not accurately calibrate with their correctness rate. We propose a plug-and-play method to estimate the confidence of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T11:36:12Z)
• Calibrating Large Language Models Using Their Generations Only [44.26441565763495]
  APRICOT is a method to set confidence targets and train an additional model that predicts an LLM's confidence based on its textual input and output alone. It is conceptually simple, does not require access to the target model beyond its output, does not interfere with the language generation, and has a multitude of potential usages. We show how our approach performs competitively in terms of calibration error for white-box and black-box LLMs on closed-book question-answering to detect incorrect LLM answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-09T17:46:24Z)
• 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)
• Fine-tuning Language Models for Factuality [96.5203774943198]
  Large pre-trained language models (LLMs) have led to their widespread use, sometimes even as a replacement for traditional search engines. Yet language models are prone to making convincing but factually inaccurate claims, often referred to as 'hallucinations' In this work, we fine-tune language models to be more factual, without human labeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T18:59:15Z)
• 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)

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.