Confidence Estimation for Financial Vision-Language Models in Chart and Document Understanding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06532v1
• Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 19:33:11 GMT
• Title: Confidence Estimation for Financial Vision-Language Models in Chart and Document Understanding
• Abstract summary: We evaluate seven confidence estimators, three inference-only and four trained internal probes, across five open-weight LVLMs.<n>Every probe is trained only on natural images and applied to finance without adaptation, so the results measure out-of-distribution transfer.
• Score: 8.289856517294075
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LVLMs are increasingly used to read financial charts, tables, and documents, where a single misread figure can move a decision and the most authoritative-looking answer is sometimes one the model produced without reading the exhibit. The operational question is therefore trust, not accuracy: which answers can be acted on, and which escalated to a reviewer. We evaluate seven confidence estimators, three inference-only and four trained internal probes, across five open-weight LVLMs and four conditions from three financial visual question-answering benchmarks, one bilingual; every probe is trained only on natural images and applied to finance without adaptation, so the results measure out-of-distribution transfer. Three findings hold. First, the scarce property is calibration, not ranking: the inference baselines rank correct above incorrect answers competitively but are badly overconfident, calibration error far above what a threshold can tolerate, and only the trained probes produce a thresholdable score. Second, reliability is structured rather than global, along two axes a practitioner can read directly: the best estimator shifts with both model and task, none leading more than eight of twenty (model, condition) cells, and a controlled bilingual contrast exposes an apparent language robustness as a composition artifact that dissolves once models are read one at a time. Third, cast as deferral under an error budget, how much can be safely automated is set first by the model's competence and only narrowed by its confidence, so deferral clears a real share of the easiest condition and almost none of the hardest, near zero at a strict 5% budget. Two trained probes carry the calibration a deferral policy needs, and among them only the grounding-aware one lowers its confidence on answers a model gives without using the figure, separating detected non-grounding from a fluent guess.

Related papers

• 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)
• Calibrated Triage, Not Autonomy: Confidence Estimation for Medical Vision-Language Models [4.0196226339562555]
  A vision-language model can answer a question about a medical image fluently and confidently while barely using the image.<n>We evaluate seven confidence estimators across five open-weight LVLMs and three medical visual-question-answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T16:39:17Z)
• LLMs Show No Signs Of Individuated Metacognition [0.023227405857540805]
  We decompose binary confidence judgements from 20 Large Language Models.<n>We ask whether two models that differ in confidence also differ in performance.<n>We find no evidence for significant verbalised individuated metacognition in any tested domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T23:54:33Z)
• Grounded or Guessing? LVLM Confidence Estimation via Blind-Image Contrastive Ranking [7.845652284569666]
  We introduce BICR (Blind-Image Contrastive Ranking), a model-agnostic confidence estimation framework.<n>A lightweight probe is trained on the real-image hidden state and regularized by a ranking loss that penalizes higher confidence on the blacked-out view.<n> evaluated across five modern LVLMs and seven baselines on a benchmark covering visual question answering, object detection, medical imaging, and financial document understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T17:35:10Z)
• 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)
• Can Large Language Models Express Uncertainty Like Human? [71.27418419522884]
  We release the first diverse, large-scale dataset of hedging expressions with human-annotated confidence scores.<n>We conduct the first systematic study of linguistic confidence across modern large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T02:34:30Z)
• 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)
• Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs [60.61002524947733]
  Previous confidence elicitation methods rely on white-box access to internal model information or model fine-tuning. This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of black-box approaches for uncertainty estimation. We define a systematic framework with three components: prompting strategies for eliciting verbalized confidence, sampling methods for generating multiple responses, and aggregation techniques for computing consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-22T17:31:44Z)
• Prompting GPT-3 To Be Reliable [117.23966502293796]
  This work decomposes reliability into four facets: generalizability, fairness, calibration, and factuality. We find that GPT-3 outperforms smaller-scale supervised models by large margins on all these facets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T14:52:39Z)

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.