Provable Limits and Certified Deferral for Verbalized Uncertainty in Small Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05064v1
• Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 17:11:04 GMT
• Title: Provable Limits and Certified Deferral for Verbalized Uncertainty in Small Language Models
• Abstract summary: Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings.<n>We study whether verbalized confidence can support risk-controlled deferral.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings, where the key deployment question is not only what a model answers but when it should defer to a human. We study whether verbalized confidence can support risk-controlled deferral, evaluating eleven instruction-tuned models from three families, 0.5B to 14B parameters, on ARC-Challenge and TruthfulQA with 25,168 local predictions. Three theoretical results delimit what calibration can provide: strictly monotone calibration preserves the risk-coverage frontier and error-detection AUROC; temperature scaling cannot calibrate models whose confidence stays above one half while accuracy falls below it; and a Clopper-Pearson procedure converts a 200-question calibration set into a finite-sample risk certificate under an i.i.d. deployment assumption. Empirically, eight of 22 model-task pairs hit the temperature-scaling infeasibility floor within one percentage point of the predicted bound. Platt scaling reduces ECE to as low as 0.02, yet certified autonomy at a 20% risk budget is granted to only three model-task pairs and to none at 10%. We also identify and repair an answer-ordering artifact in the multiple-choice form of TruthfulQA. Calibration gives confidence semantics; certified deferral determines when small models are safe to use.

Related papers

• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• ConfidenceBench: Evaluating Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models [14.831793255747181]
  ConfidenceBench is a calibration benchmark for large language models.<n>It evaluates verbalized confidence estimates in 15 frontier large language models.<n> Confidence is elicited via prompting, requiring no access to model logits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-10T01:56:30Z)
• When Can Conformal Risk Control Certify LLM Outputs? Bounds, Impossibility, and Adaptation for Structured Generation [0.11280931253550518]
  Large language models (LLMs) deployed for structured generation (NER, extraction, QA, and classification) lack formal reliability guarantees.<n>We characterize when conformal risk control (CRC) can certify structured LLM outputs and when it provably cannot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-27T19:25:07Z)
• 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)
• Calibration vs Decision Making: Revisiting the Reliability Paradox in Unlearned Language Models [15.63775421273161]
  We investigate the gap in generative language models using the multiple-choice question-answering evaluation protocol on the TOFU benchmark.<n>We find that fine-tuned models achieve low calibration error (ECE 0.04) compared to pretrained models.<n>Models after unlearning retain similarly low calibration despite reduced accuracy on the forget split.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T08:59:23Z)
• Discovery of Hidden Miscalibration Regimes [52.452902154360565]
  Models may be systematically overconfident on some kinds of inputs and underconfident on others.<n>We define the corresponding miscalibration field and propose a diagnostic framework for estimating it.<n>Our approach learns a calibration-aware representation of the input space and estimates signed local miscalibration by kernel smoothing in the learned geometry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T13:07:50Z)
• 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)
• LEC: Linear Expectation Constraints for False-Discovery Control in Selective Prediction and Routing Systems [95.35293543918762]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate unreliable answers, while uncertainty methods fail to fully distinguish correct from incorrect predictions.<n>We address this issue through the lens of false discovery rate (FDR) control, ensuring that among all accepted predictions, the proportion of errors does not exceed a target risk level.<n>We propose LEC, which reinterprets selective prediction as a constrained decision problem by enforcing a Linear Expectation Constraint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T11:27:09Z)
• Geometric Calibration and Neutral Zones for Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Class Classification [0.0]
  This work bridges information geometry and statistical learning, offering formal guarantees for uncertainty-aware classification in applications requiring rigorous validation.<n> Empirical validation on Adeno-Associated Virus classification demonstrates that the two-stage framework captures 72.5% of errors while deferring 34.5% of samples, reducing automated decision error rates from 16.8% to 6.9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T01:29:49Z)
• Towards Certification of Uncertainty Calibration under Adversarial Attacks [96.48317453951418]
  We show that attacks can significantly harm calibration, and thus propose certified calibration as worst-case bounds on calibration under adversarial perturbations.<n>We propose novel calibration attacks and demonstrate how they can improve model calibration through textitadversarial calibration training
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T18:52:09Z)
• Calibrated Uncertainty Quantification for Operator Learning via Conformal Prediction [95.75771195913046]
  We propose a risk-controlling quantile neural operator, a distribution-free, finite-sample functional calibration conformal prediction method. We provide a theoretical calibration guarantee on the coverage rate, defined as the expected percentage of points on the function domain. Empirical results on a 2D Darcy flow and a 3D car surface pressure prediction task validate our theoretical results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T23:43:28Z)
• Instant Uncertainty Calibration of NeRFs Using a Meta-calibrator [60.47106421809998]
  We introduce the concept of a meta-calibrator that performs uncertainty calibration for NeRFs with a single forward pass. We show that the meta-calibrator can generalize on unseen scenes and achieves well-calibrated and state-of-the-art uncertainty for NeRFs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T21:29:31Z)
• T-Cal: An optimal test for the calibration of predictive models [49.11538724574202]
  We consider detecting mis-calibration of predictive models using a finite validation dataset as a hypothesis testing problem. detecting mis-calibration is only possible when the conditional probabilities of the classes are sufficiently smooth functions of the predictions. We propose T-Cal, a minimax test for calibration based on a de-biased plug-in estimator of the $ell$-Expected Error (ECE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-03T16:58:54Z)

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.