Are You Sure You're Sure? On the Impact of Instruction Tuning on Confidence and Lexical Diversity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13430v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 16:18:45 GMT
• Title: Are You Sure You're Sure? On the Impact of Instruction Tuning on Confidence and Lexical Diversity
• Abstract summary: We study whether corresponding changes in the lexical diversity of generated answer rationales accompany changes in model confidence induced by instruction tuning.<n>We find that instruction tuning consistently alters answer confidence, despite limited changes in predictive accuracy and decreases in likelihood-based calibration.
• Score: 1.4157344687763311
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Instruction-tuned language models achieve strong performance across a range of generation tasks, but have also recently been shown to exhibit verbalized overconfidence. In question answering, verbalized model overconfidence may be associated with the consistency of the generated supporting rationales. In this paper, we study whether corresponding changes in the lexical diversity of generated answer rationales accompany changes in model confidence induced by instruction tuning. We evaluate three matched base and instruction-tuned models across question-answering benchmarks and find that instruction tuning consistently alters answer confidence, despite limited changes in predictive accuracy and decreases in likelihood-based calibration. Secondly, we observe a non-uniform effect of instruction tuning on rationale diversity: cross-rationale diversity consistently decreases, whereas surface-level lexical diversity varies in both direction and magnitude across models and benchmarks. Finally, we find that these differences persist after controlling for answer selection and rationale length, confirming that confidence and rationale diversity capture distinct effects of instruction tuning.

Related papers

• 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)
• Amplified Does Not Mean Predictive: Reasoning Behaviors in Thinking Models [56.88565331713778]
  reasoning-oriented training can make traces look more deliberative without amplifying the behaviors most tied to model correctness.<n>We quantify this mismatch with Behavioral Lift, a metric that measures how much correctness changes when a behavior is present versus absent in a model's reasoning trace.<n>We find evidence for an Amplification-Lift Gap, in which thinking models strongly amplify self-awareness, hypothesis testing, and uncertainty acknowledgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-13T20:37:59Z)
• The Computational Basis of Confidence in Large Language Models [2.8220151940446425]
  We use statistical decision confidence to study confidence in language models.<n>We show that answer logits behave as monotonic readouts of a latent decision variable.<n>These results establish SDC as a unifying framework for studying confidence across biological and artificial intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T07:24:32Z)
• Does Reasoning Preserve Alignment? On the Trustworthiness of Large Reasoning Models [55.788110316999166]
  We compare reasoning models produced via supervised fine-tuning, RL-based post-training, and distillation against instruction-tuned baselines.<n>We observe that reasoning models often improve on reasoning benchmarks but exhibit alignment regressions.<n>These regressions are consistent with behavioral drift from the instruction-tuned baseline, measured by KL divergence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T16:14:27Z)
• Exploring Agentic Tool-Calling Decisions via Uncertainty-Aligned Reinforcement Learning [63.24624171679711]
  Large language model (LLM)-based agents often make suboptimal tool-use decisions.<n>We propose TRUST, which incorporates uncertainty quantification into reward design as a repulsive force for maintaining uncertainty separation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T07:08:34Z)
• 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)
• A Mechanistic Study of Tabular Foundation Models [12.26738662548555]
  Tabular foundation models converge in accuracy across a range of classification and regression tasks.<n>This raises questions a leaderboard cannot answer.<n>We characterize all three: (i) whether the models execute the same in-context algorithm, (ii) where row, column, and class-permutation invariances originate, and (iii) how robust they are under perturbations engineered against the inferred mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T15:23:16Z)
• Sensitivity Uncertainty Alignment in Large Language Models [0.0]
  We propose a framework for analyzing failures of large language models under adversarial and ambiguous inputs.<n>We define a scalar score, SUA_theta(x), capturing the difference between distributional sensitivity and predictive entropy.<n>We introduce SUA-TR, a training method combining consistency regularization and entropy alignment, along with an abstention rule for safer inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T17:53:12Z)
• Learn to Rank: Visual Attribution by Learning Importance Ranking [58.69028273772474]
  We propose a new approach to generate visual attribution maps for computer vision models.<n>Our method produces dense, pixel-level attributions in a single forward pass with optional, few-step gradient refinement.<n>Our experiments demonstrate consistent quantitative improvements and sharper, boundary-aligned explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T12:53:22Z)
• Identifying Influential N-grams in Confidence Calibration via Regression Analysis [53.95767806659635]
  We identify what linguistic expressions are related to confidence by applying the regression method.<n>We show that large language models (LLMs) remain overconfident when reasoning is involved.<n>We reveal that confidence calibration is possible by simply suppressing those overconfident expressions without drops in performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T11:58:49Z)
• Improving Metacognition and Uncertainty Communication in Language Models [13.389881635116472]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making contexts.<n>LLMs' confidence is often miscalibrated and poorly discriminates between correct and incorrect answers.<n>We investigate whether supervised fine-tuning can improve models' ability to communicate uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T19:50:02Z)
• Enhancing Uncertainty Estimation and Interpretability via Bayesian Non-negative Decision Layer [55.66973223528494]
  We develop a Bayesian Non-negative Decision Layer (BNDL), which reformulates deep neural networks as a conditional Bayesian non-negative factor analysis.<n>BNDL can model complex dependencies and provide robust uncertainty estimation.<n>We also offer theoretical guarantees that BNDL can achieve effective disentangled learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T10:23:34Z)
• Verbosity Tradeoffs and the Impact of Scale on the Faithfulness of LLM Self-Explanations [19.32573526975115]
  We analyse counterfactual faithfulness across 75 models from 13 families.<n>This work motivates two new metrics: the phi-CCT, a simplified variant of the Correlational Counterfactual Test (CCT) and F-AUROC, which captures a model's ability to produce explanations with different levels of detail.<n>Our findings reveal a clear scaling trend: larger and more capable models are consistently more faithful on all metrics we consider.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T17:59:39Z)
• Learning Disentangled Representations with Latent Variation Predictability [102.4163768995288]
  This paper defines the variation predictability of latent disentangled representations. Within an adversarial generation process, we encourage variation predictability by maximizing the mutual information between latent variations and corresponding image pairs. We develop an evaluation metric that does not rely on the ground-truth generative factors to measure the disentanglement of latent representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-25T08:54:26Z)

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.