Daily Papers

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently confident, eloquent, and well versed. A natural question arises: do they know what they don't know? To answer this question, we borrow the concept of epistemic honesty and develop a novel metric to systematically evaluate whether an LLM appropriately acknowledges the boundaries of its knowledge. In this work, we introduce the Epistemic Honesty Quotient (EHQ), which reports three observable sub-scores across two operational axes (epistemic restraint and substantive-answer calibration), and construct EHQ-3000, a 3,000-question benchmark spanning Fabricated Entity, Post-Cutoff Event, Hyper-Niche True, and Context-Conditioned Questions. From a frozen registry of 21 model API routes, 15 completed the protocol after endpoint and eligibility checks; 14 entered the confirmatory analysis because severe provider-side truncation made one route's score indeterminate. The study reveals substantial variation across models, including a difference that can not be explained by their capability to extract explicitly available information. Composite EHQ ranges from 0.31 to 0.81 across the analysed panel, despite near-ceiling performance on the document-grounded capability probe. The two restraint criteria overlap strongly under the present category composition, whereas substantive-answer calibration varies across models and does not reliably co-vary with restraint; however, the small panel leaves substantial uncertainty. Thus, EHQ reveals behavioral differences that are not visible to conventional correctness-based assessment, while also showing why dataset composition, provider behavior, and confidence elicitation must remain part of the interpretation.

Modern large language models (LLMs) often exhibit overconfident errors, assigning high confidence to incorrect predictions and thereby undermining reliability in real-world use. Existing calibration methods typically rely on post-hoc adjustment or retraining, operating at the output level without addressing the underlying causes of miscalibration. We propose CoCHI, (Class-oriented Causal Head Intervention), a framework that improves calibration by identifying and intervening on internal components responsible for distinct confidence behaviours. By analysing predictions through correctness-confidence patterns, CoCHI enables targeted intervention on model internals, reducing overconfident errors while preserving correct predictions. Our approach provides a mechanistic perspective on calibration, linking reliability to identifiable structures within the model rather than treating it as an output-level issue. Experiments across multiple LLMs show consistent improvements in calibration metrics, including Expected Calibration Error, Negative Log-Likelihood, and Brier Score, while maintaining accuracy on five multiple-choice question answering benchmarks. These results suggest that effective calibration requires not only adjusting outputs, but also addressing the underlying causal mechanisms within the model.

In this paper, we uncover a systematic bias in the evaluation paradigm of adopting large language models~(LLMs), e.g., GPT-4, as a referee to score and compare the quality of responses generated by candidate models. We find that the quality ranking of candidate responses can be easily hacked by simply altering their order of appearance in the context. This manipulation allows us to skew the evaluation result, making one model appear considerably superior to the other, e.g., Vicuna-13B could beat ChatGPT on 66 over 80 tested queries with ChatGPT as an evaluator. To address this issue, we propose a calibration framework with three simple yet effective strategies: 1) Multiple Evidence Calibration, which requires the evaluator model to generate multiple evaluation evidence before assigning ratings; 2) Balanced Position Calibration, which aggregates results across various orders to determine the final score; 3) Human-in-the-Loop Calibration, which introduces a balanced position diversity entropy to measure the difficulty of each example and seeks human assistance when needed. We also manually annotate the "win/tie/lose" outcomes of responses from ChatGPT and Vicuna-13B in the Vicuna Benchmark's question prompt, and extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach successfully mitigates evaluation bias, resulting in closer alignment with human judgments. We release our code and human annotation at https://github.com/i-Eval/FairEval to facilitate future research.

When a coordinator compares answers from heterogeneous foundation models, self-reported confidence may have different meanings across responders and changing workloads. This paper presents MARGIN (Multi-Agent Runtime Grading via Incremental Normalisation), a runtime calibration method that learns model-specific confidence corrections from observed answer outcomes without retraining the models or requiring a held-out calibration set. MARGIN tracks recent accuracy and stated confidence within confidence bands, uses their ratio to correct reported confidence, and blends sparse-band corrections toward a model-level estimate. The corrected scores weight candidate answers in a collective decision. Evaluation covers code generation, question answering, and mathematics, using an 18-model pool and a nine-model subset for distribution-shift experiments. On BigCodeBench, model-mean confidence is negatively related to accuracy; among correct/incorrect response pairs, choosing the more confident responder performs below chance. Against five online calibration baselines receiving identical feedback and retaining their learned state across each transition, MARGIN achieves lower post-shift expected calibration error than all five in two code-generation transitions and than four in a question-answering transition; the remaining question-answering comparison is inconclusive. In separate code-generation coordination experiments, calibration improves the ranking of correct responses and increases answer-selection accuracy by 4.3 and 14.0 percentage points on two of three benchmarks relative to uncalibrated confidence weighting. These results support model-specific runtime calibration for coordination under changing workloads when correctness feedback is available for the participating responders.

System One models output calibrated probabilities over typed answers such as categorical choices, ordinal levels, or binary outcomes, via a non-generative interface. Software can act on these probabilities through thresholds, cost-weighted choices, and escalation rules. Consequently, if these probabilities are miscalibrated or wording-sensitive, the software ma take unintended actions leaving human operators with no textual rationale to inspect. Current evaluations largely report accuracy and calibration on public classification datasets without a clear reference. We present TypedBench, a benchmark for typed decision models like Jev built from seven policy-labelled generators and nine evaluation suites. We report accuracy as median and range across paraphrases, and calibration error relative to the finite-sample noise floor of a matched, perfectly calibrated predictor. We assess probability quality through selective prediction, ordinal proper scoring rules, and realised cost under asymmetric cost matrices. We evaluate a hosted model, an open encoder, and a family of open decoders spanning 0.8B-9B parameters on identical items. The hosted model follows the stated policy but is wording-sensitive and systematically underconfident; under asymmetric costs, using its probabilities can be worse than taking its top answer. Decoders route exactly and are slow as options or questions are added. The decoder is least accurate on policy questions and degrades with more options. Overall, typed decision models must be evaluated jointly on policy adherence, wording robustness, probability quality, and induced decision outcomes.

Audio decisions often depend on evidence that a transcript does not preserve, while their probability estimates can depend on how answer options are ordered. AudioJev maps a waveform, question and supplied alternatives directly to a candidate distribution through one shared full-parameter model. We define order calibration as preserving an answer's probability under meaning-preserving option permutations. Random-derangement SKL training pairs each question with a reordered view in which every alternative changes position, supervises both answers, and aligns the two distributions before applying a symmetric KL penalty. Inference retains a single candidate-scoring forward, with no calibration head or order ensemble. Across three training seeds, AudioJev reaches 68.88%/55.33% mean accuracy on complete MMAU/MMAR and reduces random-order SKL by 43.8%/60.5% relative to the single-view removal ablation. The same model handles intent, environmental sound, note properties, speech activity and conversational transitions. Paired removal ablations and multi-order evaluation measure predictive accuracy and probability stability together, establishing a direct audio interface whose calibration objective acts on candidate meaning rather than presentation position. Inference code and model weights are available at https://github.com/SihanLv/AudioJev-Inference and https://huggingface.co/shlv/AudioJev.

We study whether language models can evaluate the validity of their own claims and predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly. We first show that larger models are well-calibrated on diverse multiple choice and true/false questions when they are provided in the right format. Thus we can approach self-evaluation on open-ended sampling tasks by asking models to first propose answers, and then to evaluate the probability "P(True)" that their answers are correct. We find encouraging performance, calibration, and scaling for P(True) on a diverse array of tasks. Performance at self-evaluation further improves when we allow models to consider many of their own samples before predicting the validity of one specific possibility. Next, we investigate whether models can be trained to predict "P(IK)", the probability that "I know" the answer to a question, without reference to any particular proposed answer. Models perform well at predicting P(IK) and partially generalize across tasks, though they struggle with calibration of P(IK) on new tasks. The predicted P(IK) probabilities also increase appropriately in the presence of relevant source materials in the context, and in the presence of hints towards the solution of mathematical word problems. We hope these observations lay the groundwork for training more honest models, and for investigating how honesty generalizes to cases where models are trained on objectives other than the imitation of human writing.

As LLM benchmarks saturate, the evaluation community has pursued two strategies to increase difficulty: escalating knowledge demands (GPQA, HLE) or removing knowledge entirely in favor of abstract reasoning (ARC-AGI). The first conflates memorization with capability; the second divorces reasoning from the practical contexts in which it matters. We take a different approach. The Grounded Integration Measure (GIM) is a benchmark of 820 original problems (615 public, 205 private) where difficulty comes from integration; individual problems require coordinating multiple cognitive operations (constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, audience calibration) over broadly accessible knowledge, so that reasoning stays grounded in realistic tasks without being gated on specialized expertise. Each problem is an original expert-authored composition, majority with rubric-decomposed scoring (median 6 independently judged criteria). A balanced public--private split provides built-in contamination diagnostic. We calibrate a continuous response 2-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model over >200k prompt-response pairs across 28 models, producing robust ability estimates that correctly order test-configurations even when raw accuracy is distorted by errors or missing data, addressing a common challenge in benchmark reporting. Using this framework, we present a comprehensive leaderboard spanning 22 models and 47 test-configurations (unique model, thinking-level pairs), and conduct what is to our knowledge the most extensive published study of how test-time compute trades off against model capability on a fixed benchmark: 11 models swept across 35 test-configurations. We observe that within-family configuration choices, such as thinking budget and quantization, matter as much as model selection. We release the evaluation framework, calibrated IRT parameters, and all public problems.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

Medical reasoning models (MRMs) achieve superior performance on medical benchmarks compared to medical LLMs; however, high accuracy alone is insufficient for practical deployment. One of such requirements for real-world application is robustness to varying output constraints. Specifically, posing the same medical question while requesting different answer formats should not affect the underlying correctness of the response. We investigate this phenomenon in this paper, focusing on MRMs. To quantify this behavior, we propose the metric answer-format robustness: the ability to reliably generate correct outputs across varying specified formats. We examine three representative formats: multiple-choice, open-ended question-answering, and ranked lists. Across 15 proprietary and open-weight models, we observe substantial variation in format robustness (35-100%). Furthermore, we conduct controlled fine-tuning experiments on a shared backbone with matched training data to isolate the effects of the fine-tuning paradigm. We find that supervised fine-tuning yields more stable behavior across formats, whereas reinforcement fine-tuning often exhibits higher cross-format brittleness, with the degree of instability strongly dependent on reward design. Overall, answer-format robustness in MRMs is trainable yet brittle and requires careful evaluation for practical medical use.

When evaluating large language models (LLMs) with multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), it is common to end the prompt with the string "Answer:" to facilitate automated answer extraction via next-token probabilities. However, there is no consensus on how to tokenize the space following the colon, often overlooked as a trivial choice. In this paper, we uncover accuracy differences of up to 11% due to this (seemingly irrelevant) tokenization variation as well as reshuffled model rankings, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM comparisons in prior work. Surprisingly, we are able to recommend one specific strategy -- tokenizing the space together with the answer letter -- as we observe consistent and statistically significant performance improvements. Additionally, it improves model calibration, enhancing the reliability of the model's confidence estimates. Our findings underscore the importance of careful evaluation design and highlight the need for standardized, transparent evaluation protocols to ensure reliable and comparable results.

Systematic reviewers who use a model to read randomized trials need each answer and a measure of how far to trust it. If the model is calibrated, so that its stated probabilities match how often it is right, a reviewer can accept its confident answers and check the rest by hand. This paper fine-tunes Qwen3-4B-Base with low-rank adapters and a classification head for evidence inference (Lehman et al., 2019; DeYoung et al., 2020): given a trial's article and a prompt that names an intervention, a comparator and an outcome, classify the result as a significant increase, a significant decrease or no significant difference. The articles of Evidence Inference 2.0 come from the open-access subset of PubMed Central, which includes articles under non-commercial and no-derivatives licenses, so the released model was fine-tuned only on the 1,431 of 2,657 training articles under CC BY, CC0 or the public domain; it is released under the Apache License 2.0 and runs on a laptop. On the test split, its expected calibration error is 0.017 and its log loss is lower than that of Gemma 4 31B-it given the same input zero-shot, meeting criteria registered on the Open Science Framework before testing. Its macro-F1, 0.925, is above every published result on that split that I found, though those systems used other inputs, scoring rules and prompt filters, and the test labels are public. Accepting its 80 percent most confident answers leaves an error rate of 2.6 percent among them. Context ablations show that the answers depend on the article, but the title alone carries some signal, which an informative title or recall of the trial could explain.

Conformal prediction (CP) provides distribution-free prediction intervals for fixed forecasters, but its standard calibration procedure is often inefficient for time series data, where forecast errors are temporally dependent and change across time and operating conditions. Recent time series CP methods improve local calibration using recent, weighted, or localized residuals. Yet local calibration can remain indirect, since broad residual weighting or additional adaptation procedures may dilute the evidence most relevant to the current prediction. This motivates a simple retrieval and correction strategy that selects similar past residuals as local evidence and then corrects the coverage error left by retrieval. In this paper, we propose Retrieval--Corrected Conformal Prediction (RCCP), a retrieval-augmented calibration method for time series prediction intervals. RCCP builds an asymmetric interval from retrieved one-sided residuals and calibrates its normalized retrieval error with a scalar conformal correction. Thus, retrieval provides local residual evidence, while conformal correction determines the final scale needed for coverage. We provide a coverage-gap bound based on the stability of the normalized retrieval error distribution. Across standard benchmarks and backbone forecasters, RCCP attains the target coverage in every setting and achieves the lowest Winkler scores, with fewer severe misses. RCCP also achieves low calibration and inference overhead, showing that retrieval-corrected calibration is an effective and scalable approach to uncertainty quantification in time series forecasting. Code is available at https://github.com/jinsaaang/rccp.

We show that a GPT-3 model can learn to express uncertainty about its own answers in natural language -- without use of model logits. When given a question, the model generates both an answer and a level of confidence (e.g. "90% confidence" or "high confidence"). These levels map to probabilities that are well calibrated. The model also remains moderately calibrated under distribution shift, and is sensitive to uncertainty in its own answers, rather than imitating human examples. To our knowledge, this is the first time a model has been shown to express calibrated uncertainty about its own answers in natural language. For testing calibration, we introduce the CalibratedMath suite of tasks. We compare the calibration of uncertainty expressed in words ("verbalized probability") to uncertainty extracted from model logits. Both kinds of uncertainty are capable of generalizing calibration under distribution shift. We also provide evidence that GPT-3's ability to generalize calibration depends on pre-trained latent representations that correlate with epistemic uncertainty over its answers.

Reliable probability estimates are critical in many machine learning applications, yet modern classifiers are often poorly calibrated. Post-hoc calibration provides a simple and widely used solution, but the large number of proposed methods, combined with small-scale and inconsistent evaluations, makes it difficult to determine which approaches are truly effective in practice. We introduce a large-scale, standardized benchmark for post-hoc calibration, covering nearly 2000 experiments across tabular and computer vision tasks, including binary, multiclass, and large-scale classification settings. Our benchmark aggregates predictions from a diverse set of classical models, modern deep learning architectures, and foundation models, and provides unified, reproducible implementations of dozens of calibration methods within a common evaluation framework. We argue that Post-Hoc Improvement (PHI) in proper scoring rules offers a principled alternative to traditional calibration error estimators for comparing post-hoc methods, capturing both calibration quality and potential degradation to the model's predictive performance. Using this framework, we conduct the most comprehensive empirical study of post-hoc calibration to date. Our results reveal consistent patterns across domains: smooth calibration functions outperform binning-based approaches, dedicated multiclass methods are essential in high-dimensional settings, and generic machine learning models are not competitive without calibration-specific design. To facilitate future research, we release all data, code, and evaluation tools, providing a plug-and-play benchmark for developing and comparing calibration methods.

When answering questions, LLMs can convey not only an answer, but a level of confidence about the answer being correct. This includes explicit confidence markers (e.g. giving a numeric score) as well as implicit markers, like an authoritative tone or elaborating with additional knowledge. For LLMs to be trustworthy knowledge sources, the confidence they convey should match their actual expertise; however, most current models tend towards overconfidence. To calibrate both implicit and explicit confidence markers, we introduce a pragmatic, listener-aware finetuning method (LACIE) that models the listener, considering not only whether an answer is right, but whether it will be accepted by a listener. We cast calibration as preference optimization, creating data via a two-agent game, where a speaker model's outputs are judged by a simulated listener. We then finetune three LLMs (Mistral-7B, Llama3-8B, Llama3-70B) with LACIE, and show that the resulting models are better calibrated w.r.t. a simulated listener. Crucially, these trends transfer to human listeners, helping them correctly predict model correctness: we conduct a human evaluation where annotators accept or reject an LLM's answers, finding that training with LACIE results in 47% fewer incorrect answers being accepted while maintaining the same level of acceptance for correct answers. Furthermore, LACIE generalizes to another dataset, resulting in a large increase in truthfulness on TruthfulQA when trained on TriviaQA. Our analysis indicates that LACIE leads to a better confidence separation between correct and incorrect examples. Qualitatively, we find that a LACIE-trained model hedges more and implicitly signals certainty when it is correct by using an authoritative tone or including details. Finally, LACIE finetuning leads to an emergent increase in model abstention (e.g. saying "I don't know") for answers that are likely wrong.

The rapid release of both language models and benchmarks makes it increasingly costly to evaluate every model on every dataset. In practice, models are often evaluated on different samples, making scores difficult to compare across studies. To address this, we propose a framework based on multidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) that uses anchor items to calibrate new benchmarks to the evaluation suite while holding previously calibrated item parameters fixed. Our approach supports a realistic evaluation setting in which datasets are introduced over time and models are evaluated only on the datasets available at the time of evaluation, while a fixed anchor set for each dataset is used so that results from different evaluation periods can be compared directly. In large-scale experiments on more than 400 models, our framework predicts full-evaluation performance within 2-3 percentage points using only 100 anchor questions per dataset, with Spearman ρgeq 0.9 for ranking preservation, showing that it is possible to extend benchmark suites over time while preserving score comparability, at a constant evaluation cost per new dataset. Code available at https://github.com/eliyahabba/growing-pains

Calibration, the alignment of predicted probabilities with true outcome frequencies, is essential for reliable decision-making. While extensively studied for classification and regression, calibration has not been formally addressed for probabilistic label ranking, where the goal is to predict a distribution over orderings of a label set. Naively treating rankings as classes ignores their structure and fails to capture important modalities such as pairwise and top-k predictions. We formalize calibration for label ranking and develop a hierarchy of notions covering full rankings, sub-rankings, and top-k rankings. We prove that full-rank calibration implies the others but not conversely, and sub-ranking and top-k calibration are incomparable. Empirically, we find popular label ranking models are often poorly calibrated, with substantial differences between sub-ranking and top-k metrics. Applying our framework to RLHF reward models, we find that calibration correlates strongly but not perfectly with benchmark accuracy, suggesting it captures a meaningful quality dimension beyond top-1 accuracy. These findings motivate future work on understanding the downstream effects of miscalibration and developing methods to correct it.

In legal decisions, split votes (SV) occur when judges cannot reach a unanimous decision, posing a difficulty for lawyers who must navigate diverse legal arguments and opinions. In high-stakes domains, understanding the alignment of perceived difficulty between humans and AI systems is crucial to build trust. However, existing NLP calibration methods focus on a classifier's awareness of predictive performance, measured against the human majority class, overlooking inherent human label variation (HLV). This paper explores split votes as naturally observable human disagreement and value pluralism. We collect judges' vote distributions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and present SV-ECHR, a case outcome classification (COC) dataset with SV information. We build a taxonomy of disagreement with SV-specific subcategories. We further assess the alignment of perceived difficulty between models and humans, as well as confidence- and human-calibration of COC models. We observe limited alignment with the judge vote distribution. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic exploration of calibration to human judgements in legal NLP. Our study underscores the necessity for further research on measuring and enhancing model calibration considering HLV in legal decision tasks.

With the increasing adoption of vision-language models (VLMs) in critical decision-making systems such as healthcare or autonomous driving, the calibration of their uncertainty estimates becomes paramount. Yet, this dimension has been largely underexplored in the VLM test-time prompt-tuning (TPT) literature, which has predominantly focused on improving their discriminative performance. Recent state-of-the-art advocates for enforcing full orthogonality over pairs of text prompt embeddings to enhance separability, and therefore calibration. Nevertheless, as we theoretically show in this work, the inherent gradients from fully orthogonal constraints will strongly push semantically related classes away, ultimately making the model overconfident. Based on our findings, we propose Semantic Orthogonal Calibration (SoC), a Huber-based regularizer that enforces smooth prototype separation while preserving semantic proximity, thereby improving calibration compared to prior orthogonality-based approaches. Across a comprehensive empirical validation, we demonstrate that SoC consistently improves calibration performance, while also maintaining competitive discriminative capabilities.

Quantifying the uncertainty of predictions made by large language models (LLMs) in binary text classification tasks remains a challenge. Calibration, in the context of LLMs, refers to the alignment between the model's predicted probabilities and the actual correctness of its predictions. A well-calibrated model should produce probabilities that accurately reflect the likelihood of its predictions being correct. We propose a novel approach that utilizes the inductive Venn--Abers predictor (IVAP) to calibrate the probabilities associated with the output tokens corresponding to the binary labels. Our experiments on the BoolQ dataset using the Llama 2 model demonstrate that IVAP consistently outperforms the commonly used temperature scaling method for various label token choices, achieving well-calibrated probabilities while maintaining high predictive quality. Our findings contribute to the understanding of calibration techniques for LLMs and provide a practical solution for obtaining reliable uncertainty estimates in binary question answering tasks, enhancing the interpretability and trustworthiness of LLM predictions.

A well-calibrated model should express confidence that matches its actual accuracy -- when it claims 80\% confidence, it should be correct 80\% of the time. While large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance across diverse tasks, their epistemic calibration remains poorly understood. We introduce KalshiBench, a benchmark of 300 prediction market questions from Kalshi, a CFTC-regulated exchange, with verifiable real-world outcomes occurring after model training cutoffs. Unlike traditional benchmarks measuring accuracy on static knowledge, KalshiBench evaluates whether models can appropriately quantify uncertainty about genuinely unknown future events. We evaluate five frontier models -- Claude Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2, DeepSeek-V3.2, Qwen3-235B, and Kimi-K2 -- and find systematic overconfidence across all models. Even the best-calibrated model (Claude Opus 4.5, ECE=0.120) shows substantial calibration errors, while reasoning-enhanced models like GPT-5.2-XHigh exhibit worse calibration (ECE=0.395) despite comparable accuracy. Critically, only one model achieves a positive Brier Skill Score, indicating most models perform worse than simply predicting base rates. Our findings suggest that scaling and enhanced reasoning do not automatically confer calibration benefits, highlighting epistemic calibration as a distinct capability requiring targeted development.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making contexts, but when they present answers without signaling low confidence, users may unknowingly act on erroneous outputs. Prior work shows that LLMs maintain internal uncertainty signals, yet their expressed confidence is often miscalibrated and poorly discriminates between correct and incorrect answers. We investigate whether supervised fine-tuning can improve models' ability to communicate uncertainty and whether such improvements generalize across tasks and domains. We fine-tune LLMs on datasets spanning general knowledge, mathematics, and open-ended trivia, and evaluate two metacognitive tasks: (1) single-question confidence estimation, where the model assigns a numeric certainty to its answer, and (2) pairwise confidence comparison, where the model selects which of two answers it is more likely to answer correctly. We assess generalization to unseen domains, including medical and legal reasoning. Results show that fine-tuning improves calibration (alignment between stated confidence and accuracy) and discrimination (higher confidence for correct vs. incorrect responses) within and across domains. However, gains are task-specific: training on single-question calibration does not transfer to pairwise comparison, and vice versa. Multitask fine-tuning yields broader gains, lowering calibration error and strengthening discrimination in out-of-domain evaluations. This suggests that uncertainty communication in LLMs is trainable but requires multitask training to generalize effectively.

Large language models are increasingly evaluated by other models, raising a natural question: can a model predict how a judge will score its own output? We find that the ability is largely present before any targeted training: prompted few-shot, a base model already predicts an external judge's multi-attribute quality scores on open-ended responses well above chance across three benchmarks. We introduce Self-Evaluation Elicitation (SEE), a method that surfaces this latent ability through a short cycle comprising a calibration-coupled reinforcement learning phase that improves the answer and predicts the judge, followed by a masked distillation phase that sharpens the prediction while leaving the answer untouched. From 160 unique examples, roughly 31x fewer than a reinforcement learning baseline, SEE improves held-out calibration across three benchmarks while preserving answer quality. The elicited self-evaluation is sharply localized within the model's own token distribution and stable across judges it was never trained against, indicating a transferable notion of quality rather than a single judge's preference. These results reframe judge-aligned self-evaluation as a problem of elicitation rather than acquisition.

A trustworthy real-world prediction system should produce well-calibrated confidence scores; that is, its confidence in an answer should be indicative of the likelihood that the answer is correct, enabling deferral to an expert in cases of low-confidence predictions. Recent studies have shown that unsupervised pre-training produces large language models (LMs) whose conditional probabilities are remarkably well-calibrated. However, the most widely-used LMs are fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF-LMs), and some studies have suggested that RLHF-LMs produce conditional probabilities that are very poorly calibrated. In light of this perceived weakness, we conduct a broad evaluation of methods for extracting confidence scores from RLHF-LMs. For RLHF-LMs such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Claude, we find that verbalized confidences emitted as output tokens are typically better-calibrated than the model's conditional probabilities on the TriviaQA, SciQ, and TruthfulQA benchmarks, often reducing the expected calibration error by a relative 50%.

Reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs) requires accurate uncertainty estimation. Existing methods are predominantly answer-first, producing confidence only after generating an answer, which measure the correctness of a specific response and limits practical usability. We study a confidence-first paradigm, where the model outputs its confidence before answering, interpreting this score as the model's probability of answering the question correctly under its current policy. We propose CoCA(Co-optimized Confidence and Answers), a GRPO reinforcement learning framework that jointly optimizes confidence calibration and answer accuracy via segmented credit assignment. By assigning separate rewards and group-relative advantages to confidence and answer segments, CoCA enables stable joint optimization and avoids reward hacking. Experiments across math, code, and factual QA benchmarks show improved calibration and uncertainty discrimination while preserving answer quality, thereby enabling a broader range of downstream applications.

When retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems hallucinate, what geometric trace does this leave in embedding space? We introduce the Semantic Grounding Index (SGI), defined as the ratio of angular distances from the response to the question versus the context on the unit hypersphere S^{d-1}.Our central finding is semantic laziness: hallucinated responses remain angularly proximate to questions rather than departing toward retrieved contexts. On HaluEval (n=5,000), we observe large effect sizes (Cohen's d ranging from 0.92 to 1.28) across five embedding models with mean cross-model correlation r=0.85. Crucially, we derive from the spherical triangle inequality that SGI's discriminative power should increase with question-context angular separation θ(q,c)-a theoretical prediction confirmed empirically: effect size rises monotonically from d=0.61 -low θ(q,c), to d=1.27 -high θ(q,c), with AUC improving from 0.72 to 0.83. Subgroup analysis reveals that SGI excels on long responses (d=2.05) and short questions (d=1.22), while remaining robust across context lengths. Calibration analysis yields ECE=0.10, indicating SGI scores can serve as probability estimates, not merely rankings. A critical negative result on TruthfulQA (AUC=0.478) establishes that angular geometry measures topical engagement rather than factual accuracy. SGI provides computationally efficient, theoretically grounded infrastructure for identifying responses that warrant verification in production RAG deployments.

Graph-augmented retrieval combines dense similarity with graph-based relevance signals such as Personalized PageRank (PPR), but these scores have different distributions and are not directly comparable. We study this as a score calibration problem for heterogeneous retrieval fusion in multi-hop question answering. Our method, PhaseGraph, maps vector and graph scores to a common unit-free scale using percentile-rank normalization (PIT) before fusion, enabling stable combination without discarding magnitude information. Across MuSiQue and 2WikiMultiHopQA, calibrated fusion improves held-out last-hop retrieval on HippoRAG2-style benchmarks: LastHop@5 increases from 75.1% to 76.5% on MuSiQue (8W/1L, p=0.039) and from 51.7% to 53.6% on 2WikiMultiHopQA (11W/2L, p=0.023), both on independent held-out test splits. A theory-driven ablation shows that percentile-based calibration is directionally more robust than min-max normalization on both tune and test splits (1W/6L, p=0.125), while Boltzmann weighting performs comparably to linear fusion after calibration (0W/3L, p=0.25). These results suggest that score commensuration is a robust design choice, and the exact post-calibration operator appears to matter less on these benchmarks.

Forecasting has become a natural benchmark for reasoning under uncertainty. Yet existing evaluations of large language models remain limited to judgmental tasks in simple formats, such as binary or multiple-choice questions. In practice, however, forecasting spans a far broader scope. Across domains such as economics, public health, and social demographics, decisions hinge on numerical estimates over continuous quantities, a capability that current benchmarks do not capture. Evaluating such estimates requires a format that makes uncertainty explicit and testable. We propose prediction intervals as a natural and rigorous interface for this purpose. They demand scale awareness, internal consistency across confidence levels, and calibration over a continuum of outcomes, making them a more suitable evaluation format than point estimates for numerical forecasting. To assess this capability, we introduce a new benchmark QuantSightBench, and evaluate frontier models under multiple settings, assessing both empirical coverage and interval sharpness. Our results show that none of the 11 evaluated frontier and open-weight models achieves the 90\% coverage target, with the top performers Gemini 3.1 Pro (79.1\%), Grok 4 (76.4\%), and GPT-5.4 (75.3\%) all falling at least 10 percentage points short. Calibration degrades sharply at extreme magnitudes, revealing systematic overconfidence across all evaluated models.

Reliable large language models (LLMs) must not only produce accurate answers but also express confidence that faithfully reflects their probability of being correct. Such calibration is essential for identifying uncertain predictions and supporting reliable decision-making in real-world deployment. Recent studies incorporate calibration learning into reinforcement learning (RL), jointly optimizing answer correctness and verbalized confidence using ground-truth correctness supervision. However, their reliance on labeled data limits their applicability in practical test-time settings, where ground-truth labels are unavailable and calibration may need to adapt to newly encountered target tasks. To address this challenge, we propose Test-Time Calibration Learning (TTCL), a label-free framework that jointly adapts reasoning accuracy and verbalized confidence directly on unlabeled target-task data. Specifically, TTCL derives self-supervision signals for both correctness and calibration from multiple model-generated responses, enabling calibration learning at test time without ground-truth labels. Theoretical analysis further establishes TTCL as a bounded surrogate for the ideal calibration objective. Extensive experiments on mathematical reasoning and factual question answering demonstrate that TTCL consistently improves both accuracy and calibration across diverse models and tasks. On base models, TTCL achieves an average relative accuracy improvement of +40.13% and an ECE reduction of +70.80% across eight benchmarks. Moreover, TTCL can further improve both accuracy and calibration for already calibrated models under domain shift, particularly when source-domain calibration transfers poorly to target tasks. In the math-to-factQA setting, TTCL achieves an average relative accuracy gain of +20.35% and reduces ECE by +53.83%. The source code is released at https://github.com/tmlr-group/TTCL.

Overconfidence and underconfidence in machine learning classifiers is measured by calibration: the degree to which the probabilities predicted for each class match the accuracy of the classifier on that prediction. How one measures calibration remains a challenge: expected calibration error, the most popular metric, has numerous flaws which we outline, and there is no clear empirical understanding of how its choices affect conclusions in practice, and what recommendations there are to counteract its flaws. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive empirical study of choices in calibration measures including measuring all probabilities rather than just the maximum prediction, thresholding probability values, class conditionality, number of bins, bins that are adaptive to the datapoint density, and the norm used to compare accuracies to confidences. To analyze the sensitivity of calibration measures, we study the impact of optimizing directly for each variant with recalibration techniques. Across MNIST, Fashion MNIST, CIFAR-10/100, and ImageNet, we find that conclusions on the rank ordering of recalibration methods is drastically impacted by the choice of calibration measure. We find that conditioning on the class leads to more effective calibration evaluations, and that using the L2 norm rather than the L1 norm improves both optimization for calibration metrics and the rank correlation measuring metric consistency. Adaptive binning schemes lead to more stablity of metric rank ordering when the number of bins vary, and is also recommended. We open source a library for the use of our calibration measures.

We propose causal isotonic calibration, a novel nonparametric method for calibrating predictors of heterogeneous treatment effects. Furthermore, we introduce cross-calibration, a data-efficient variant of calibration that eliminates the need for hold-out calibration sets. Cross-calibration leverages cross-fitted predictors and generates a single calibrated predictor using all available data. Under weak conditions that do not assume monotonicity, we establish that both causal isotonic calibration and cross-calibration achieve fast doubly-robust calibration rates, as long as either the propensity score or outcome regression is estimated accurately in a suitable sense. The proposed causal isotonic calibrator can be wrapped around any black-box learning algorithm, providing robust and distribution-free calibration guarantees while preserving predictive performance.

As language models improve and become increasingly deployed to solve a variety of tasks, trustworthiness becomes essential. Calibration is a good proxy for trust: well-calibrated confidence estimates help inform the risk versus reward tradeoff when trusting a specific model output. Unfortunately, even as models improve, they remain poorly calibrated, often biasing towards overconfidence. Additionally, calibration can be gamed: a policy that always predicts the base rate is perfectly calibrated, but completely uninformative. To resolve this, we develop a new metric, expected utility renormalized by the oracle (EURO), that balances calibration and informativeness. We also propose a general-purpose activation-based confidence, utility, and trust estimation protocol (ACUTE) to appropriately adjudicate uncertainty. The ACUTE protocol provides flexible, sample-efficient, and compute-efficient confidence estimators for 3 tasks including multiple choice question answering, tool-calling, and scientific document summarization across 6 models from 4 model families. ACUTE outperforms strong baselines on EURO, while maintaining low calibration error. Taken together, our work shows that equipping LLMs with the ACUTE protocol can improve calibration, utility, and trustworthiness in numerous settings.

Process reward models (PRMs) play a central role in guiding inference-time scaling algorithms for large language models (LLMs). However, we observe that even state-of-the-art PRMs can be poorly calibrated and often overestimate success probabilities. To address this, we present a calibration approach, performed via quantile regression, that adjusts PRM outputs to better align with true success probabilities. Leveraging these calibrated success estimates and their associated confidence bounds, we introduce an instance-adaptive scaling (IAS) framework that dynamically adjusts the inference budget based on the estimated likelihood that a partial reasoning trajectory will yield a correct final answer. Unlike conventional methods that allocate a fixed number of reasoning trajectories per query, this approach successfully adapts to each instance and reasoning step when using our calibrated PRMs. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that (i) our PRM calibration method successfully achieves small calibration error, outperforming the baseline methods, (ii) calibration is crucial for enabling effective adaptive scaling, and (iii) the proposed IAS strategy reduces inference costs while maintaining final answer accuracy, utilizing less compute on more confident problems as desired.

Large language models can still hallucinate in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), producing claims that are unsupported by or conflict with the retrieved context. Detecting such errors remains challenging when faithfulness is judged solely against the retrieved context: many existing detectors return holistic answer-level scores, while others target open-domain factuality or fail to provide evidence-grounded diagnostics. We present RT4CHART, a retromorphic testing framework for context-faithfulness assessment. RT4CHART decomposes an answer into independently verifiable claims, performs hierarchical local-to-global verification against the retrieved context, and assigns each claim one of three labels: entailed, contradicted, or baseless. It further maps these claim-level decisions back to specific answer spans and returns explicit context-side evidence, enabling fine-grained auditing rather than opaque scoring. We evaluate RT4CHART on RAGTruth++ (408 samples) and our re-annotated RAGTruth-Enhance (2,675 samples). RT4CHART achieves the best answer-level hallucination-detection F1 score among the evaluated baselines. On RAGTruth++, it attains a precision of 0.845, a recall of 0.718, and an F1 score of 0.776, representing an 83% relative improvement over the strongest baseline. It also achieves a span-level F1 score of 47.5% on RAGTruth-Enhance. Ablation studies show that claim-based local processing drives most of the observed improvement, while global verification provides selective benefits across datasets. Finally, our re-annotation identifies 1.68X more hallucination cases than the original labels, suggesting that commonly used benchmarks substantially underestimate the prevalence of hallucination.

Deep neural networks have demonstrated remarkable performance across numerous learning tasks but often suffer from miscalibration, resulting in unreliable probability outputs. This has inspired many recent works on mitigating miscalibration, particularly through post-hoc recalibration methods that aim to obtain calibrated probabilities without sacrificing the classification performance of pre-trained models. In this study, we summarize and categorize previous works into three general strategies: intuitively designed methods, binning-based methods, and methods based on formulations of ideal calibration. Through theoretical and practical analysis, we highlight ten common limitations in previous approaches. To address these limitations, we propose a probabilistic learning framework for calibration called h-calibration, which theoretically constructs an equivalent learning formulation for canonical calibration with boundedness. On this basis, we design a simple yet effective post-hoc calibration algorithm. Our method not only overcomes the ten identified limitations but also achieves markedly better performance than traditional methods, as validated by extensive experiments. We further analyze, both theoretically and experimentally, the relationship and advantages of our learning objective compared to traditional proper scoring rule. In summary, our probabilistic framework derives an approximately equivalent differentiable objective for learning error-bounded calibrated probabilities, elucidating the correspondence and convergence properties of computational statistics with respect to theoretical bounds in canonical calibration. The theoretical effectiveness is verified on standard post-hoc calibration benchmarks by achieving state-of-the-art performance. This research offers valuable reference for learning reliable likelihood in related fields.

Speech deepfake detectors usually emit one score per utterance, but a borderline score does not reveal why two examples differ during retrospective error analysis. We ask whether a final score can be calibrated from component fields while keeping those fields visible for inspection. We build a decision record with a passive detector score and a score from a probe applied to a marked copy. It also includes retrieval support held out of the evaluated family, a margin from a support-set profile, and raw neighbor closeness. A cross-fit calibrator combines these fields and two differences between raw scores into one final score. On matched ASVspoof development data, the calibrated record reduces equal error rate (EER) by 3.48 percentage points relative to the fixed retrieval-augmented rule. It reaches 8.43% EER, whereas a passive WavLM baseline reaches 6.71% on the same subset. The record is therefore not the strongest detector in this comparison. Its value is to retain inspectable component fields while producing one scalar score for retrospective diagnosis.

Clinical personality assessment screens response validity before interpreting substantive scales. LLM evaluation does not. We apply the validity scaling framework from the PAI and MMPI-3 to metacognitive probe data from 20 frontier models across 524 items. Six validity indices are operationalised: L (maintaining confidence on errors), K (betting on errors), F (withdrawing consensus-endorsed items), Fp (withdrawing correct answers), RBS (inverted monitoring), and TRIN (fixed responding). A tiered classification system identifies four models as construct-level invalid and two as elevated. Valid-profile models produce item-sensitive confidence (mean r = .18, 14 of 16 significant). Invalid-profile models do not (mean r = -.20, d = 2.17, p = .001). Chain-of-thought training produces two opposite response distortions. Two latent dimensions account for 94.6% of index variance. Companion papers extract a portable screening protocol (Cacioli, 2026e) and validate it against selective prediction (Cacioli, 2026f). All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

Given a black-box AI system and a task, at what confidence level can a practitioner trust the system's output? We answer with a reliability level -- a single number per system-task pair, derived from self-consistency sampling and conformal calibration, that serves as a black-box deployment gate with exact, finite-sample, distribution-free guarantees. Self-consistency sampling reduces uncertainty exponentially; conformal calibration guarantees correctness within 1/(n+1) of the target level, regardless of the system's errors -- made transparently visible through larger answer sets for harder questions. Weaker models earn lower reliability levels (not accuracy -- see Definition 2.4): GPT-4.1 earns 94.6% on GSM8K and 96.8% on TruthfulQA, while GPT-4.1-nano earns 89.8% on GSM8K and 66.5% on MMLU. We validate across five benchmarks, five models from three families, and both synthetic and real data. Conditional coverage on solvable items exceeds 0.93 across all configurations; sequential stopping reduces API costs by around 50%.

Verifiable instruction-following benchmarks emphasize output-constraint satisfaction but can overlook whether responses meaningfully answer the underlying request, creating an evaluation blind spot. We show that frontier models can receive full credit for responses with little substantive answer content. Using the same verifier-based criterion as a training reward can induce reward hacking, as publicly released checkpoints exhibit higher constraint satisfaction but lower response quality after reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. To address this reward hacking, we introduce CALIF, a lightweight method that augments verifier rewards with a calibrated likelihood-based bonus to preserve response quality. CALIF evaluates response likelihood under the request alone using the existing frozen reference policy, requiring no additional judge or learned reward model. Across models ranging from 1.7B to 8B in reasoning and non-reasoning modes, CALIF improves constraint satisfaction on IFBench while maintaining response quality near or above pre-RL levels. It also outperforms corresponding base policies in 40 of 45 model-metric comparisons across three rubric-based instruction-following benchmarks, demonstrating gains beyond training verifiers.

Current question-answering benchmarks predominantly focus on accuracy in realizable prediction tasks. Conditioned on a question and answer-key, does the most likely token match the ground truth? Such benchmarks necessarily fail to evaluate LLMs' ability to quantify ground-truth outcome uncertainty. In this work, we focus on the use of LLMs as risk scores for unrealizable prediction tasks. We introduce folktexts, a software package to systematically generate risk scores using LLMs, and evaluate them against US Census data products. A flexible API enables the use of different prompting schemes, local or web-hosted models, and diverse census columns that can be used to compose custom prediction tasks. We evaluate 17 recent LLMs across five proposed benchmark tasks. We find that zero-shot risk scores produced by multiple-choice question-answering have high predictive signal but are widely miscalibrated. Base models consistently overestimate outcome uncertainty, while instruction-tuned models underestimate uncertainty and produce over-confident risk scores. In fact, instruction-tuning polarizes answer distribution regardless of true underlying data uncertainty. This reveals a general inability of instruction-tuned LLMs to express data uncertainty using multiple-choice answers. A separate experiment using verbalized chat-style risk queries yields substantially improved calibration across instruction-tuned models. These differences in ability to quantify data uncertainty cannot be revealed in realizable settings, and highlight a blind-spot in the current evaluation ecosystem that folktexts covers.

The appearance of Jev marked the era of System One Models, foundation models that return structured decisions with probability distributions rather than text. Aside from low cost and great speed, Jev's central promise is that these probabilities are calibrated: such claim is not backed by any public test and available external benchmarks evaluate confidence calibration, not whether every returned option probability has the right numerical meaning. To tackle this issue, we introduce Sys1Cal-v1, a dataset of True/False questions about a proposition A for which the exact probability P(A) is known by construction. Each item is queried through the three Jev primitives - Noul, Choice and Score - and evaluated by total variation distance from the ground-truth distribution, which can be used to estimate a soft accuracy of System One Models. We showcase the utility of Sys1Cal-v1 as a benchmark dataset by evaluating Jev and SemIf, an open-source Choice-style baseline. In this work, however, we focus even more deeply on Jev, by studying the calibration of its Score and Choice answers. In particular, we discover a peculiar behaviour that can be explained by assuming that Jev suppresses a third truth value, going beyond True and False. In other words, in Choice answers, P(A) and P(neg A) are presented as if P(A)+P(neg A)=1, while a term P(U)neq0 is missing in the sum. Recovering P(U) leads to an improvement of median soft accuracy in Choice answers from 0.771 to 0.978, suggesting that, even in binary decisions, Jev wants to answer with a third option:``I don't know''.

Existing language model evaluations primarily measure general capabilities, yet reliable use of these models across a range of domains demands factual accuracy and recognition of knowledge gaps. We introduce AA-Omniscience, a benchmark designed to measure both factual recall and knowledge calibration across 6,000 questions. Questions are derived from authoritative academic and industry sources, and cover 42 economically relevant topics within six different domains. The evaluation measures a model's Omniscience Index, a bounded metric (-100 to 100) measuring factual recall that jointly penalizes hallucinations and rewards abstention when uncertain, with 0 equating to a model that answers questions correctly as much as it does incorrectly. Among evaluated models, Claude 4.1 Opus attains the highest score (4.8), making it one of only three models to score above zero. These results reveal persistent factuality and calibration weaknesses across frontier models. Performance also varies by domain, with the models from three different research labs leading across the six domains. This performance variability suggests models should be chosen according to the demands of the use case rather than general performance for tasks where knowledge is important.

Multiple choice benchmarks have long been the workhorse of language model evaluation because grading multiple choice is objective and easy to automate. However, we show multiple choice questions from popular benchmarks can often be answered without even seeing the question. These shortcuts arise from a fundamental limitation of discriminative evaluation not shared by evaluations of the model's free-form, generative answers. Until recently, there appeared to be no viable, scalable alternative to multiple choice--but, we show that this has changed. We consider generative evaluation via what we call answer matching: Give the candidate model the question without the options, have it generate a free-form response, then use a modern language model with the reference answer to determine if the response matches the reference. To compare the validity of different evaluation strategies, we annotate MMLU-Pro and GPQA-Diamond to obtain human grading data, and measure the agreement of each evaluation approach. We find answer matching using recent models--even small ones--achieves near-perfect agreement, in the range of inter-annotator agreement. In contrast, both multiple choice evaluation and using LLM-as-a-judge without reference answers aligns poorly with human grading. Improving evaluations via answer matching is not merely a conceptual concern: the rankings of several models change significantly when evaluating their free-form responses with answer matching. In light of these findings, we discuss how to move the evaluation ecosystem from multiple choice to answer matching.

We develop a principled procedure for determining when a large language model (LLM) should abstain from responding (e.g., by saying "I don't know") in a general domain, instead of resorting to possibly "hallucinating" a non-sensical or incorrect answer. Building on earlier approaches that use self-consistency as a more reliable measure of model confidence, we propose using the LLM itself to self-evaluate the similarity between each of its sampled responses for a given query. We then further leverage conformal prediction techniques to develop an abstention procedure that benefits from rigorous theoretical guarantees on the hallucination rate (error rate). Experimentally, our resulting conformal abstention method reliably bounds the hallucination rate on various closed-book, open-domain generative question answering datasets, while also maintaining a significantly less conservative abstention rate on a dataset with long responses (Temporal Sequences) compared to baselines using log-probability scores to quantify uncertainty, while achieveing comparable performance on a dataset with short answers (TriviaQA). To evaluate the experiments automatically, one needs to determine if two responses are equivalent given a question. Following standard practice, we use a thresholded similarity function to determine if two responses match, but also provide a method for calibrating the threshold based on conformal prediction, with theoretical guarantees on the accuracy of the match prediction, which might be of independent interest.

Reliable assessment of the abilities of large audio language models (LALMs) is essential to advancing the state of the art. As benchmarks rapidly evolve to incorporate complex reasoning and subjective tasks, they increasingly necessitate open-ended responses from LALMs. We present Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment (ORCA) -- a reliable and lightweight model-based approach for answer correctness and disagreement modeling. We employ a three-stage annotation pipeline combining human judgment, structured feedback, and human-AI correction, yielding 9,663 annotations across 3,699 question-answer pairs from 15 LALMs on three audio understanding and reasoning benchmarks (achieving a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.82). Our experiments employing curriculum learning show that ORCA models achieve a Spearman correlation of 0.91 with average human correctness ratings on seen benchmarks and generalize to unseen benchmarks with a score of 0.85, outperforming several LLM judge baselines including Gemini 2.5 Flash. Furthermore, we demonstrate that ORCA's predicted variance correlates strongly with human disagreement, allowing it to effectively identify problematic benchmark items.

Safe deployment of large language models (LLMs) may benefit from a reliable method for assessing their generated content to determine when to abstain or to selectively generate. While likelihood-based metrics such as perplexity are widely employed, recent research has demonstrated the limitations of using sequence-level probability estimates given by LLMs as reliable indicators of generation quality. Conversely, LLMs have demonstrated strong calibration at the token level, particularly when it comes to choosing correct answers in multiple-choice questions or evaluating true/false statements. In this work, we reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks, and leverage LLMs' superior calibration at the token level. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers, employing either a multi-way comparison or a point-wise evaluation approach, with the option to include a ``None of the above'' option to express the model's uncertainty explicitly. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation and evaluate their performance in selective generation using TruthfulQA and TL;DR. Through experiments with PaLM-2 and GPT-3, we demonstrate that self-evaluation based scores not only improve accuracy, but also correlate better with the overall quality of generated content.

Automated answer matching, which leverages LLMs to evaluate free-text responses by comparing them to a reference answer, shows substantial promise as a scalable and aligned alternative to human evaluation. However, its reliability requires robustness against strategic attacks such as guesswork or verbosity that may artificially inflate scores without improving actual correctness. In this work, we systematically investigate whether such tactics deceive answer matching models by prompting examinee models to: (1) generate verbose responses, (2) provide multiple answers when unconfident, and (3) embed conflicting answers with the correct answer near the start of their response. Our results show that these manipulations do not increase scores and often reduce them. Additionally, binary scoring (which requires a matcher to answer with a definitive "correct" or "incorrect") is more robust to attacks than continuous scoring (which requires a matcher to determine partial correctness). These findings show that answer matching is generally robust to inexpensive text manipulation and is a viable alternative to traditional LLM-as-a-judge or human evaluation when reference answers are available.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) frameworks enable large language models (LLMs) to retrieve relevant information from a knowledge base and incorporate it into the context for generating responses. This mitigates hallucinations and allows for the updating of knowledge without retraining the LLM. However, RAG does not guarantee valid responses if retrieval fails to identify the necessary information as the context for response generation. Also, if there is contradictory content, the RAG response will likely reflect only one of the two possible responses. Therefore, quantifying uncertainty in the retrieval process is crucial for ensuring RAG trustworthiness. In this report, we introduce a four-step framework for applying conformal prediction to quantify retrieval uncertainty in RAG frameworks. First, a calibration set of questions answerable from the knowledge base is constructed. Each question's embedding is compared against document embeddings to identify the most relevant document chunks containing the answer and record their similarity scores. Given a user-specified error rate ({\alpha}), these similarity scores are then analyzed to determine a similarity score cutoff threshold. During inference, all chunks with similarity exceeding this threshold are retrieved to provide context to the LLM, ensuring the true answer is captured in the context with a (1-{\alpha}) confidence level. We provide a Python package that enables users to implement the entire workflow proposed in our work, only using LLMs and without human intervention.

Conformal prediction is often calibrated with a single pooled threshold, but this can hide cross-group heterogeneity in score distributions and distort group-wise coverage. We study this phenomenon through the population score distributions underlying split conformal calibration. First, we derive a conservation law and lower bound showing that pooled calibration incurs irreducible group-wise coverage distortion at a scale set by cross-group quantile heterogeneity. Second, we demonstrate that the two leading fairness definitions for conformal prediction, Equalized Coverage and Equalized Set Size, are fundamentally in tension. Third, we quantify the cost of moving between policies which treat groups separately or pool them. Experiments on synthetic and real data confirm the same bidirectional trade-off after finite-sample calibration. Our results show that, for the policy families studied here, calibration choice does not remove cross-group heterogeneity; it determines whether the resulting distortion appears in the coverage or size dimension, providing a principled lens for analyzing fairness-oriented calibration choices in practice.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce answers with high certainty even when they are incorrect, making reliable confidence estimation essential for deployment in real-world scenarios. Verbalized confidence, where models explicitly state their confidence in natural language, provides a flexible and user-facing uncertainty signal that can be applied even when token logits are unavailable. However, existing verbalized-confidence methods often optimize answer generation and confidence generation jointly, which can cause confidence-alignment objectives to interfere with answer accuracy. In this work, we propose a decoupled and order-aware framework for verbalized confidence calibration. Our method first generates an answer and then estimates confidence conditioned on the fixed question--answer pair, allowing confidence optimization without directly perturbing the answer-generation process. To align confidence with correctness likelihood, we construct a sampling-based surrogate from multiple model completions and optimize rank-based reinforcement learning objectives that encourage responses with higher estimated correctness likelihood to receive higher verbalized confidence. Experiments on reasoning and knowledge-intensive benchmarks show that our method improves calibration and failure prediction performance while largely preserving answer accuracy. These results demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be more reliably aligned by decoupling confidence estimation from answer generation and optimizing the relative ordering of confidence across responses.

GPT-3 can perform numerous tasks when provided a natural language prompt that contains a few training examples. We show that this type of few-shot learning can be unstable: the choice of prompt format, training examples, and even the order of the training examples can cause accuracy to vary from near chance to near state-of-the-art. We demonstrate that this instability arises from the bias of language models towards predicting certain answers, e.g., those that are placed near the end of the prompt or are common in the pre-training data. To mitigate this, we first estimate the model's bias towards each answer by asking for its prediction when given the training prompt and a content-free test input such as "N/A". We then fit calibration parameters that cause the prediction for this input to be uniform across answers. On a diverse set of tasks, this contextual calibration procedure substantially improves GPT-3 and GPT-2's average accuracy (up to 30.0% absolute) and reduces variance across different choices of the prompt.

Claims that language models homogenise are usually measured against human judgements collected for the study, which makes the human side an artifact of the design: a crowdworker given the model's instruction is running the model's prompt. We measure convergence against a human reference nobody built for the purpose -- 2,523 reader mark sets across 120 web documents, produced by people highlighting for their own reasons on a platform where the overlay of others' marks is off by default. Agreement is the overlap between two size-matched sentence sets minus the overlap expected when each is resampled within its own depth-and-length bands. The null's calibration is demonstrated, not asserted: every pair involving a random baseline lands within 0.006 of zero. On the median document each party names 14 sentences of 70; two readers share 4.1 and two models 8.7. Across 18 model arms spanning 11 vendors, 3 countries and both weight regimes, the median of 153 model pairs is +0.093 against a human yardstick of +0.040, and 99 sit entirely above the human interval. Two frontier models from rival labs reach +0.203, twice what GPT-4o agrees with itself on a second call. The effect is not determinism, prompt wording, procedure, vendor or routing, and it is graded: the smallest models agree at the human level. No model agrees with readers detectably more than a reader does, and at equal depth and length no surface feature separates their choices. The multiples are procedure-dependent and the ordering is not: models are cut to their sharpest set while a reader's is a random draw from what they marked, and blunting the models alike halves the gap without closing it. Tested out of sample on four models released after this analysis, against predictions fixed beforehand, none clears the human interval. A population simulated from several models is not several populations.

As AI-based code generation becomes widespread, researchers are investigating the calibration of code LLMs - ensuring their confidence scores faithfully represent the true likelihood of code correctness. To do so, we investigate multicalibration, which can capture additional factors about a coding problem, such as complexity, code length, or programming language used. We study four multicalibration approaches on three function synthesis benchmarks, using latest-generation code LLMs (Qwen3 Coder, GPT-OSS, DeepSeek-R1-Distill). Our results demonstrate that multicalibration can yield distinct improvements over both uncalibrated token likelihoods (+1.03 in skill score) and baseline calibrations (+0.37 in skill score). We study the influence of the aforementioned factors in ablations, and make our dataset (consisting of code generations, likelihoods, and correctness labels) available for future research on code LLM calibration.

Autonomous agents based on large language models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving to handle multi-turn tasks, but ensuring their trustworthiness remains a critical challenge. A fundamental pillar of this trustworthiness is calibration, which refers to an agent's ability to express confidence that reliably reflects its actual performance. While calibration is well-established for static models, its dynamics in tool-integrated agentic workflows remain underexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate verbalized calibration in tool-use agents, revealing a fundamental confidence dichotomy driven by tool type. Specifically, our pilot study identifies that evidence tools (e.g., web search) systematically induce severe overconfidence due to inherent noise in retrieved information, while verification tools (e.g., code interpreters) can ground reasoning through deterministic feedback and mitigate miscalibration. To robustly improve calibration across tool types, we propose a reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning framework that jointly optimizes task accuracy and calibration, supported by a holistic benchmark of reward designs. We demonstrate that our trained agents not only achieve superior calibration but also exhibit robust generalization from local training environments to noisy web settings and to distinct domains such as mathematical reasoning. Our results highlight the necessity of domain-specific calibration strategies for tool-use agents. More broadly, this work establishes a foundation for building self-aware agents that can reliably communicate uncertainty in high-stakes, real-world deployments.

We present an online post-hoc calibration method, called Online Platt Scaling (OPS), which combines the Platt scaling technique with online logistic regression. We demonstrate that OPS smoothly adapts between i.i.d. and non-i.i.d. settings with distribution drift. Further, in scenarios where the best Platt scaling model is itself miscalibrated, we enhance OPS by incorporating a recently developed technique called calibeating to make it more robust. Theoretically, our resulting OPS+calibeating method is guaranteed to be calibrated for adversarial outcome sequences. Empirically, it is effective on a range of synthetic and real-world datasets, with and without distribution drifts, achieving superior performance without hyperparameter tuning. Finally, we extend all OPS ideas to the beta scaling method.

We study the connection between multicalibration and boosting for squared error regression. First we prove a useful characterization of multicalibration in terms of a ``swap regret'' like condition on squared error. Using this characterization, we give an exceedingly simple algorithm that can be analyzed both as a boosting algorithm for regression and as a multicalibration algorithm for a class H that makes use only of a standard squared error regression oracle for H. We give a weak learning assumption on H that ensures convergence to Bayes optimality without the need to make any realizability assumptions -- giving us an agnostic boosting algorithm for regression. We then show that our weak learning assumption on H is both necessary and sufficient for multicalibration with respect to H to imply Bayes optimality. We also show that if H satisfies our weak learning condition relative to another class C then multicalibration with respect to H implies multicalibration with respect to C. Finally we investigate the empirical performance of our algorithm experimentally using an open source implementation that we make available. Our code repository can be found at https://github.com/Declancharrison/Level-Set-Boosting.

Accurate probabilistic predictions are essential for optimal decision making. While neural network miscalibration has been studied primarily in classification, we investigate this in the less-explored domain of regression. We conduct the largest empirical study to date to assess the probabilistic calibration of neural networks. We also analyze the performance of recalibration, conformal, and regularization methods to enhance probabilistic calibration. Additionally, we introduce novel differentiable recalibration and regularization methods, uncovering new insights into their effectiveness. Our findings reveal that regularization methods offer a favorable tradeoff between calibration and sharpness. Post-hoc methods exhibit superior probabilistic calibration, which we attribute to the finite-sample coverage guarantee of conformal prediction. Furthermore, we demonstrate that quantile recalibration can be considered as a specific case of conformal prediction. Our study is fully reproducible and implemented in a common code base for fair comparisons.

Language models often receive a question together with a claim about what another source answered. We audit whether such claims destabilize answers in multiple-choice question answering. For each item, we hold one wrong option fixed across misleading conditions and vary the cue template attached to it. We introduce neutral-conditioned misleading cue adoption rate (NC-MCAR), which measures switches to that option only on valid cued trials where the same model first selected the gold answer under a neutral prompt. This is a measure of answer instability, not proof that the model knew the answer or that all deference is irrational. We evaluate four instruction-following models on MMLU-Pro and IndicMMLU-Pro in English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, and Telugu. Across 220{,}000 outputs, the expert template yields 41.1\% aggregate NC-MCAR, compared with 12.5\% for the majority template. These two conditions use the same wrong option and final instruction. Filler accuracy remains well above expert-wrong accuracy, while correct-cue prompts have high valid-response accuracy. The audit documents answer instability relevant to grounding under the tested forced-choice prompts: a bare, unverified source claim can outweigh an answer that was previously consistent with the task evidence.

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in consequential settings such as medical question answering and legal reasoning, the ability to estimate when their outputs are likely to be correct is essential for safe and reliable use, requiring well-calibrated uncertainty. Standard reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) trains models with a binary correctness reward that is indifferent to confidence, providing no penalty for confident but wrong predictions and thereby degrading calibration. Recent work addresses this by training models to produce verbalized confidence scores alongside answers and rewarding agreement with correctness. However, verbalized confidence is calibrated at the token level and thus exhibits inconsistency across textual variations with same semantic meaning. We propose Calibration with Semantic Reward (CSR), a framework that calibrates language models directly in semantic space without a verbalized confidence interface. CSR combines the correctness reward with a novel semantic calibration reward that encourages exploitation among correct rollouts by promoting semantic agreement, and exploration among incorrect ones by discouraging spurious consistency. Experiments across three model families on HotpotQA (in-distribution) and TriviaQA, MSMARCO, and NQ-Open (out-of-distribution) show that CSR consistently achieves lower ECE and higher AUROC than verbalized-confidence baselines across nearly all settings, reducing ECE by up to 40% and improving AUROC by up to 31% over verbalized-confidence baselines, with calibration behavior generalizing robustly across all four evaluation settings.

Long-form question answering (LFQA) aims to provide thorough and in-depth answers to complex questions, enhancing comprehension. However, such detailed responses are prone to hallucinations and factual inconsistencies, challenging their faithful evaluation. This work introduces HaluQuestQA, the first hallucination dataset with localized error annotations for human-written and model-generated LFQA answers. HaluQuestQA comprises 698 QA pairs with 4.7k span-level error annotations for five different error types by expert annotators, along with preference judgments. Using our collected data, we thoroughly analyze the shortcomings of long-form answers and find that they lack comprehensiveness and provide unhelpful references. We train an automatic feedback model on this dataset that predicts error spans with incomplete information and provides associated explanations. Finally, we propose a prompt-based approach, Error-informed refinement, that uses signals from the learned feedback model to refine generated answers, which we show reduces hallucination and improves answer quality. Furthermore, humans find answers generated by our approach comprehensive and highly prefer them (84%) over the baseline answers.

Decision models such as Jev answer questions with probabilities, which are only useful if they are calibrated. Open-source reproductions rely on supervised fine-tuning plus temperature scaling, while reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) makes reasoning models overconfident. We present a working implementation of reinforcement learning for calibrated decisions (RLCD) for reasoning models: the model samples a rationale, and we score the answer distribution it commits to afterwards with a strictly proper scoring rule. A variance identity shows that scoring the mixture of several samples rewards disagreeing rationales, and that RLVR is exactly this mixture objective without its diversity term. Optimized naively, the per-rationale objective either switches reasoning off or is drowned out by policy-gradient noise, which leads to a two-stage recipe: calibrate, then reinforce. With Qwen3-1.7B on two reasoning tasks (3 seeds, paired tests), RLCD matches or beats SFT, RFT/STaR and GRPO (each temperature-scaled) in accuracy and beats all of them in selective prediction; on GSM8K answer verification a single query decides \gvTwoCovFive\% of the items at le5\% error, versus \gvGrpoCovFive\% for GRPO. When uncertainty comes from annotator disagreement, RLCD provably cannot beat cross-entropy. Code and results: https://github.com/ZimmyGao/openjev-rlcd.

Search-augmented language agents should retrieve external information only when necessary and ground their answers in retrieved evidence. Yet terminal correctness assigns equal credit to direct answers from parametric knowledge, evidence-grounded answers, and answers recalled after redundant search. Process supervision and LLM judges provide richer feedback but can require high-cost annotation or inference; low-cost, non-contrastive policy confidence signals do not directly identify whether retrieved evidence changes an answer. We propose Search-G1, a reward framework that couples retrieval necessity with evidence reliance through two intervention-calibrated hidden-state readouts for selective grounded search. A prompt readout predicts closed-book sufficiency, whose complement proxies policy-relative retrieval necessity; an answer-commit readout predicts evidence reliance as sensitivity to evidence deletion conditional on the realized reasoning prefix. A correctness-first reward gates evidence-reliance credit by retrieval necessity, rewards sufficient direct answers, and penalizes repeated search. After calibration, scoring needs neither process annotations nor LLM-judge inference. As policy-relative targets, trajectory distributions, and representations may drift, Search-G1 periodically regenerates targets and refits its readouts. Across four QA benchmarks and two scales, Search-G1 achieves competitive task accuracy, with stronger counterfactual evidence dependence and fewer searches in the main comparisons, complemented by independent human audits of answer support.

Conformal prediction (CP) offers distribution-free uncertainty quantification for machine learning models, yet its interplay with fairness in downstream decision-making remains underexplored. Moving beyond CP as a standalone operation (procedural fairness), we analyze the holistic decision-making pipeline to evaluate substantive fairness-the equity of downstream outcomes. Theoretically, we derive an upper bound that decomposes prediction-set size disparity into interpretable components, clarifying how label-clustered CP helps control method-driven contributions to unfairness. To facilitate scalable empirical analysis, we introduce an LLM-in-the-loop evaluator that approximates human assessment of substantive fairness across diverse modalities. Our experiments reveal that label-clustered CP variants consistently deliver superior substantive fairness. Finally, we empirically show that equalized set sizes, rather than coverage, strongly correlate with improved substantive fairness, enabling practitioners to design more fair CP systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/llm-in-the-loop-conformal-fairness.

Large language models fine-tuned for forecasting can be accurate yet poorly calibrated, and their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning may not faithfully reflect the evidence behind a forecast. We ask whether internal representations offer a more direct window into both. Working with Eternis-Forecaster 8B on OpenForesight, we train representation-pooling probes on intermediate activations and find they achieve substantially better calibration; a result that also holds for GLM-4.7-Flash and GLM-4.5-Air. We then assess CoT faithfulness through evidence ablation and diversionary injection: removing an influential source in the prompt often changes the model's forecast while leaving the reasoning trace untouched. The same probes function as lie detectors: their activations track behavioral shifts far better than the reasoning trace does, and they also predict the direction of change in 84% of cases, including when the CoT conceals the perturbation's influence. Finally, forced answering reveals that forecasts are largely fixed before reasoning begins: a single pre-reasoning pass recovers the committed answer and confidence, and routing questions by the spread of this pre-set answer distribution saves 30-47% of generated tokens, with no loss of accuracy. Together, these results establish probing internal representations as a practical tool for calibrating, auditing, and triaging language model forecasters and reasoning models more broadly.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

Evaluating software agents on a full benchmark is expensive. A small task subset can preserve agent rankings while yielding inaccurate scores. Historical responses provide useful structure, but tasks with identical source responses can have different outcomes for a new target agent. We introduce Hierarchical Score Posterior Recovery (HSPR), which combines source-fitted response factors with uncertain group success rates. Observed target outcomes update the posteriors over the target latent state and group rates; posterior-guided acquisition selects subsequent tasks. Its score-based criterion equals the expected one-step reduction in full-score posterior variance. Observed successes and posterior-predictive counts for unqueried tasks yield a full-score posterior. The final estimate uses its median with source-selected calibration. At a 10% task budget on four task banks from the SWE-bench family, HSPR achieves the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) on three banks and the lowest maximum absolute error (MaxErr) on all four among the methods compared. Removing group uncertainty or replacing adaptive queries increases macro MAE in the respective controls. Macro MAE decreases across 5-20% budgets.

Large language models (LLMs) often present answers with high apparent confidence despite lacking an explicit mechanism for reasoning about certainty or truth. While existing benchmarks primarily evaluate single-turn accuracy, truthfulness or confidence calibration, they do not capture how models behave when their responses are challenged in interactive settings. We introduce the Certainty Robustness Benchmark, a two-turn evaluation framework that measures how LLMs balance stability and adaptability under self-challenging prompts such as uncertainty ("Are you sure?") and explicit contradiction ("You are wrong!"), alongside numeric confidence elicitation. Using 200 reasoning and mathematics questions from LiveBench, we evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs and distinguish between justified self-corrections and unjustified answer changes. Our results reveal substantial differences in interactive reliability that are not explained by baseline accuracy alone: some models abandon correct answers under conversational pressure, while others demonstrate strong resistance to challenge and better alignment between confidence and correctness. These findings identify certainty robustness as a distinct and critical dimension of LLM evaluation, with important implications for alignment, trustworthiness and real-world deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can correct their self-generated responses, but a decline in accuracy after self-correction is also witnessed. To have a deeper understanding of self-correction, we endeavor to decompose, evaluate, and analyze the self-correction behaviors of LLMs. By enumerating and analyzing answer correctness before and after self-correction, we decompose the self-correction capability into confidence (being confident to correct answers) and critique (turning wrong answers to correct) capabilities, and propose two metrics from a probabilistic perspective to measure these 2 capabilities, along with another metric for overall self-correction capability evaluation. Based on our decomposition and evaluation metrics, we conduct extensive experiments and draw some empirical conclusions. For example, we find different models can exhibit distinct behaviors: some models are confident while others are more critical. We also find the trade-off between the two capabilities (i.e. improving one can lead to a decline in the other) when manipulating model self-correction behavior by prompts or in-context learning. Further, we find a simple yet efficient strategy to improve self-correction capability by transforming Supervision Fine-Tuning (SFT) data format, and our strategy outperforms vanilla SFT in both capabilities and achieves much higher accuracy after self-correction. Our code will be publicly available on GitHub.

While test-time scaling has enabled large language models to solve highly difficult tasks, state-of-the-art results come at exorbitant compute costs. These inefficiencies can be attributed to the miscalibration of post-trained language models, and the lack of calibration in popular sampling techniques. Here, we present Online Reasoning Calibration (ORCA), a framework for calibrating the sampling process that draws upon conformal prediction and test-time training. Specifically, we introduce a meta-learning procedure that updates the calibration module for each input. This allows us to provide valid confidence estimates under distributional shift, e.g. in thought patterns that occur across different stages of reasoning, or in prompt distributions between model development and deployment. ORCA not only provides theoretical guarantees on conformal risks, but also empirically shows higher efficiency and generalization across different reasoning tasks. At risk level δ=0.1, ORCA improves Qwen2.5-32B efficiency on in-distribution tasks with savings up to 47.5% with supervised labels and 40.7% with self-consistency labels. Under zero-shot out-of-domain settings, it improves MATH-500 savings from 24.8% of the static calibration baseline to 67.0% while maintaining a low empirical error rate, and the same trend holds across model families and downstream benchmarks. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/wzekai99/ORCA.

Given a question, a language model (LM) implicitly encodes a distribution over possible answers. In practice, post-training procedures for LMs often collapse this distribution onto a single dominant mode. While this is generally not a problem for benchmark-style evaluations that assume one correct answer, many real-world tasks inherently involve multiple valid answers or irreducible uncertainty. Examples include medical diagnosis, ambiguous question answering, and settings with incomplete information. In these cases, we would like LMs to generate multiple plausible hypotheses, ideally with confidence estimates for each one, and without computationally intensive repeated sampling to generate non-modal answers. This paper describes a multi-answer reinforcement learning approach for training LMs to perform distributional reasoning over multiple answers during inference. We modify the RL objective to enable models to explicitly generate multiple candidate answers in a single forward pass, internalizing aspects of inference-time search into the model's generative process. Across question-answering, medical diagnostic, and coding benchmarks, we observe improved diversity, coverage, and set-level calibration scores compared to single answer trained baselines. Models trained with our approach require fewer tokens to generate multiple answers than competing approaches. On coding tasks, they are also substantially more accurate. These results position multi-answer RL as a principled and compute-efficient alternative to inference-time scaling procedures such as best-of-k. Code and more information can be found at https://multi-answer-rl.github.io/.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in user-facing applications, building trust and maintaining safety by accurately quantifying a model's confidence in its prediction becomes even more important. However, finding effective ways to calibrate LLMs - especially when the only interface to the models is their generated text - remains a challenge. We propose APRICOT (auxiliary prediction of confidence targets): 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. This approach has several advantages: 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, for instance by verbalizing the predicted confidence or adjusting the given answer based on the confidence. 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.

Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's behavioral robustness to irrelevant or misleading information. In this paper, we argue that a model's true confidence should reflect its stability under cognitive pressure. We introduce CaliDist, a novel post-hoc calibration approach that directly measures and penalizes a model's susceptibility to distraction. CaliDist quantifies how an LLM's predictions and uncertainty change when its input prompt is perturbed with semantic distractors. This stability (or lack thereof) signal is then used to adaptively scale the model's initial confidence score. Our extensive experiments on seven Natural Language Understanding classification benchmarks using six distinct LLMs show that CaliDist consistently achieves lower Expected Calibration Error (ECE) and Brier Score compared with strong baselines. Remarkably, our method reduces the ECE from 23% to 7% on average--a relative improvement of 70%--demonstrating that behavioral stability is a powerful signal for calibration. We make our code and datasets available at github.com/anas-jawad/CaliDist.

The increased use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in sensitive domains leads to growing interest in how their confidence scores correspond to fairness and bias. This study examines the alignment between LLM-predicted confidence and human-annotated bias judgments. Focusing on gender bias, the research investigates probability confidence calibration in contexts involving gendered pronoun resolution. The goal is to evaluate if calibration metrics based on predicted confidence scores effectively capture fairness-related disparities in LLMs. The results show that, among the six state-of-the-art models, Gemma-2 demonstrates the worst calibration according to the gender bias benchmark. The primary contribution of this work is a fairness-aware evaluation of LLMs' confidence calibration, offering guidance for ethical deployment. In addition, we introduce a new calibration metric, Gender-ECE, designed to measure gender disparities in resolution tasks.

Generating accurate and calibrated confidence estimates is critical for deploying LLMs in high-stakes or user-facing applications, and remains an open challenge. Prior research has often framed confidence as a problem of eliciting a model's "self-knowledge", i.e., the ability of an LLM to judge whether its own answers are correct; this approach implicitly assumes that there is some privileged information about the answer's correctness that is accessible to the model itself. However, our experiments reveal that an LLM attempting to predict the correctness of its own outputs generally performs no better than an unrelated LLM. Moreover, we hypothesize that a key factor in building a "Correctness Model" (CM) is exposure to a target model's historical predictions. We propose multiple methods to inject this historical correctness information, creating a Generalized Correctness Model (GCM). We first show that GCMs can be trained on the correctness data from many LLMs and learn patterns for correctness prediction applicable across datasets and models. We then use CMs as a lens for studying the source of correctness prediction ability and its generalization, systematically controlling their training data and finding that answer phrasing is a strong predictor for correctness. We further explore alternative methods of injecting history without training an LLM, finding that including history as in-context examples can help improve correctness prediction, and post-hoc calibration can provide complementary reductions in calibration error. We evaluate GCMs based on Qwen3-8B across 5 model families and the MMLU and TriviaQA datasets, as well as on a downstream selective prediction task, finding that reliable LLM confidence estimation is a generalizable and model-agnostic skill learned by systematically encoding correctness history rather than a model-specific skill reliant on self-introspection.

Reasoning models have achieved remarkable performance on tasks like math and logical reasoning thanks to their ability to search during reasoning. However, they still suffer from overthinking, often performing unnecessary reasoning steps even after reaching the correct answer. This raises the question: can models evaluate the correctness of their intermediate answers during reasoning? In this work, we study whether reasoning models encode information about answer correctness through probing the model's hidden states. The resulting probe can verify intermediate answers with high accuracy and produces highly calibrated scores. Additionally, we find models' hidden states encode correctness of future answers, enabling early prediction of the correctness before the intermediate answer is fully formulated. We then use the probe as a verifier to decide whether to exit reasoning at intermediate answers during inference, reducing the number of inference tokens by 24\% without compromising performance. These findings confirm that reasoning models do encode a notion of correctness yet fail to exploit it, revealing substantial untapped potential to enhance their efficiency.

Scholastic trivia competitions test knowledge and intelligence through mastery of question answering. Modern question answering benchmarks are one variant of the Turing test. Specifically, answering a set of questions as well as a human is a minimum bar towards demonstrating human-like intelligence. This paper makes the case that the format of one competition -- where participants can answer in the middle of hearing a question (incremental) -- better differentiates the skill between (human or machine) players. Additionally, merging a sequential decision-making sub-task with question answering (QA) provides a good setting for research in model calibration and opponent modeling. Thus, embedded in this task are three machine learning challenges: (1) factoid QA over thousands of Wikipedia-like answers, (2) calibration of the QA model's confidence scores, and (3) sequential decision-making that incorporates knowledge of the QA model, its calibration, and what the opponent may do. We make two contributions: (1) collecting and curating a large factoid QA dataset and an accompanying gameplay dataset, and (2) developing a model that addresses these three machine learning challenges. In addition to offline evaluation, we pitted our model against some of the most accomplished trivia players in the world in a series of exhibition matches spanning several years. Throughout this paper, we show that collaborations with the vibrant trivia community have contributed to the quality of our dataset, spawned new research directions, and doubled as an exciting way to engage the public with research in machine learning and natural language processing.

Medical vision-language models (VLMs) require confidence that reflects both answer correctness and patient-specific visual evidence. Recent GRPO-based methods optimize verbalized confidence together with answer generation. However, this joint optimization may interfere with answer learning and drive confidence toward near-binary values. Verbalized confidence also provides no explicit assessment of visual support. We therefore separate capability learning from confidence estimation and propose DualRead. DualRead builds on the insight that reliability can be read from the actor's internal states at critical moments in the answering process. It freezes the GRPO-trained actor and combines pre-answer solvability with a post-answer assessment of the generated answer and its visual support. To further assess whether confidence reflects visual grounding, we introduce Counterfactual Confidence Grounding AUC (CCG-AUC). It measures whether confidence decreases when real-image substitution changes the actor from correct to incorrect. Across two VLM backbones and both in- and out-of-distribution medical VQA benchmarks, DualRead improves correctness discrimination and calibration over verbalized confidence while preserving answer accuracy. CCG-AUC reveals whether confidence responds to answer-relevant visual evidence rather than primarily to non-visual cues.

Confidence calibration -- the problem of predicting probability estimates representative of the true correctness likelihood -- is important for classification models in many applications. We discover that modern neural networks, unlike those from a decade ago, are poorly calibrated. Through extensive experiments, we observe that depth, width, weight decay, and Batch Normalization are important factors influencing calibration. We evaluate the performance of various post-processing calibration methods on state-of-the-art architectures with image and document classification datasets. Our analysis and experiments not only offer insights into neural network learning, but also provide a simple and straightforward recipe for practical settings: on most datasets, temperature scaling -- a single-parameter variant of Platt Scaling -- is surprisingly effective at calibrating predictions.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) often suffer from overconfidence when expressing their uncertainty. Confidence-aware reinforcement learning (RL) offers a promising way to optimize calibration. However, it relies on on-policy rollouts and is thus constrained by the model's pre-RL confidence distribution, which we term confidence prior. In this work, we reveal that off-the-shelf LRMs exhibit a confidence prior heavily concentrated on a few high values, which persists throughout RL. Theoretically, we prove that this concentration suppresses policy gradient updates for rarely sampled confidence values and inflates the lower bound on expected Brier risk. To overcome this exploration bottleneck, we propose CalibSFT, a plug-and-play supervised fine-tuning stage that shapes a calibrated confidence prior with broad support before RL. For each question, CalibSFT constructs confidence targets combining its success rate with response-level correctness, which provably preserves proper-scoring optimality, and then balances training responses across the confidence spectrum to enable diverse confidence exploration during RL. To learn from incorrect responses without imitating their reasoning, CalibSFT introduces correctness-conditional supervision, guiding confidence across all responses while supervising reasoning only on correct ones. Across 16 mathematical and general reasoning benchmarks, incorporating CalibSFT reduces calibration errors and improves discrimination across five representative RL algorithms while preserving comparable accuracy. Furthermore, CalibSFT delivers practical benefits for downstream selective prediction and model routing. Our code is available at https://github.com/ml-stat-Sustech/verbalized-confidence-training.

Pre-trained Transformers are now ubiquitous in natural language processing, but despite their high end-task performance, little is known empirically about whether they are calibrated. Specifically, do these models' posterior probabilities provide an accurate empirical measure of how likely the model is to be correct on a given example? We focus on BERT and RoBERTa in this work, and analyze their calibration across three tasks: natural language inference, paraphrase detection, and commonsense reasoning. For each task, we consider in-domain as well as challenging out-of-domain settings, where models face more examples they should be uncertain about. We show that: (1) when used out-of-the-box, pre-trained models are calibrated in-domain, and compared to baselines, their calibration error out-of-domain can be as much as 3.5x lower; (2) temperature scaling is effective at further reducing calibration error in-domain, and using label smoothing to deliberately increase empirical uncertainty helps calibrate posteriors out-of-domain.

Learned post-training quantization (PTQ) calibration fits quantizer parameters on a small calibration set, and for a text embedder the natural supervision is retrieval relevance. We ask two questions that are usually conflated: how far to calibrate, and whether to calibrate at all. Across three embedders (e5-base-v2, BGE-M3, EmbeddingGemma-300m) at 4-bit weight quantization, 161 calibration runs, the outcome of a fixed procedure ranges from a gain to catastrophic degradation, and the driver is the dose of the update, measured as the functional displacement D_func of the quantized model from its uncalibrated start. On EmbeddingGemma the same learning-rate grid gives +1.47 to -71.53 points of in-domain NDCG@10 change; a label-free cosine objective collapses at the same dose (-69.52 vs -71.63), so the collapse is a property of learnable calibration rather than of retrieval supervision. Objective sensitivity is heterogeneous: on e5, ranking calibration is substantially more robust than cosine at matched displacement (+14.16 +/- 4.34 pp, 95% t-CI [+3.37, +24.96], three paired slates), whereas on BGE-M3 the ordering is directionally opposite but unresolved ([-5.18, +2.38]). Dose is the main axis but not a sufficient statistic: equal D_func reached along different paths differs by up to 1.61 pp. We therefore treat calibration as an optional intervention. A pre-registered rule that accepts a checkpoint only when a per-query paired confidence interval on a 25% calibration-validation split clears the uncalibrated baseline was run on 6 independent slates and five arms. It never selected a checkpoint below its slate's baseline (0 harmful selections in 30 decisions), retained 8 of 11 beneficial updates, and paid a mean oracle regret of 1.52 pp with one abstention that forfeited 11.13 pp, a safety-opportunity trade-off, not a free improvement. We report what remains open, including label efficiency.

The hallucination of non-existent facts by LLMs is an important problem given its widespread adoption across various applications. Previous research addresses this problem by analyzing the internal parameterized knowledge boundaries to estimate confidence. However, these studies focus on the single-problem setting and have not explored the more challenging multi-problem setting, which requires accurately answering multiple questions simultaneously. We introduce a novel method for the multi-problem setting, Multiple Answers and Confidence Stepwise Tuning (MAC-Tuning), that separates the learning of answer prediction and confidence estimation during fine-tuning on instruction data. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms baselines by up to 25\% in average precision.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent reasoning traces that nevertheless lead to incorrect answers, making response-level uncertainty estimation important for abstention, human review, and adaptive compute allocation. Existing approaches generally fall into three categories: passive single-trace methods use token-level confidence signals, sampling-based methods compare multiple complete traces at higher generation cost, and active prefix-based methods probe partial traces to study answer stabilization or preference transitions. However, none actively re-elicits an answer from a completed reasoning trace to measure its consistency with and support for the original answer. To address this gap, we introduce Trace-Conditioned Answer Consistency (TrAC), a correctness-supervised uncertainty quantification framework that combines active and passive signals anchored to one completed reasoning trace. Its active component, Prefix-Conditioned Elicitation (PCE), re-elicits a short answer conditioned on the completed trace and represents both its consistency with the original answer and its token-level probabilistic support. Its passive component, Trace Uncertainty Profile (TUP), summarizes how token-level uncertainty evolves throughout the original generation without additional decoding. A lightweight head then integrates the two representations into a response-correctness score. Across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and three LLM families, TrAC improves macro AUROC by 1.8% and reduces AURC by 3.4% relative to eight-sample self-consistency, while using one complete reasoning trace and a short cached answer probe. When eight samples are already available, augmenting sample consensus with re-elicitation further improves macro AUROC by 4.3% and reduces AURC by 8.3%, without additional full-trace generation.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to make decisions from visual inputs. We introduce FAIRLENS, a benchmark and evaluation framework for measuring both the fairness and the validity of VLM responses in three high-stakes domains: hiring, legal, and healthcare. FAIRLENS pairs real face images spanning gender, race, and age groups with closed- and open-ended questions, giving more than 100K image-question pairs per model, and evaluates responses from four complementary views: demographic parity over adverse outcome rates, soundness, demographic association over unsupported roles and statuses, and bias in free-text generation. Soundness is the central validity criterion: a response is sound when it follows the evidence stated in the question and abstains when the image cannot support an answer. Evaluating eight VLMs, we find that the primary failure is unwarranted inference rather than unequal treatment. Models routinely infer qualifications, threat, illness, or professional role from a face instead of abstaining, and the weakest model does so on 99% of the questions its input cannot answer. These failures are most severe in legal and healthcare, where recognizing insufficient evidence matters most, and disparity metrics alone would miss them: parity gaps are small in absolute terms, yet when baseline adverse rates are low the same gap means one demographic group receives adverse labels several times as often as another, and a small gap can equally reflect a model that treats every group unsafely. Bias in free-text responses is only loosely coupled to multiple-choice accuracy, so correct structured answers do not imply safe generation. FAIRLENS shows that fair high-stakes VLM behavior requires similar treatment across groups and refusal to infer high-stakes attributes from appearance, and its question suite transfers to any face corpus with demographic annotations.

Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) achieve strong multimodal reasoning but frequently exhibit hallucinations and incorrect responses with high certainty, which hinders their usage in high-stakes domains. Existing verbalized confidence calibration methods, largely developed for text-only LLMs, typically optimize a single holistic confidence score using binary answer-level correctness. This design is mismatched to LVLMs: an incorrect prediction may arise from perceptual failures or from reasoning errors given correct perception, and a single confidence conflates these sources while visual uncertainty is often dominated by language priors. To address these issues, we propose VL-Calibration, a reinforcement learning framework that explicitly decouples confidence into visual and reasoning confidence. To supervise visual confidence without ground-truth perception labels, we introduce an intrinsic visual certainty estimation that combines (i) visual grounding measured by KL-divergence under image perturbations and (ii) internal certainty measured by token entropy. We further propose token-level advantage reweighting to focus optimization on tokens based on visual certainty, suppressing ungrounded hallucinations while preserving valid perception. Experiments on thirteen benchmarks show that VL-Calibration effectively improves calibration while boosting visual reasoning accuracy, and it generalizes to out-of-distribution benchmarks across model scales and architectures.

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. 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. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.

Reasoning models have demonstrated impressive performance on difficult tasks that traditional language models struggle at. However, many are plagued with the problem of overthinking--generating large amounts of unnecessary tokens which don't improve accuracy on a question. We introduce approximate measures of problem-level difficulty and demonstrate that a clear relationship between problem difficulty and optimal token spend exists, and evaluate how well calibrated a variety of reasoning models are in terms of efficiently allocating the optimal token count. We find that in general, reasoning models are poorly calibrated, particularly on easy problems. To evaluate calibration on easy questions we introduce DUMB500, a dataset of extremely easy math, reasoning, code, and task problems, and jointly evaluate reasoning model on these simple examples and extremely difficult examples from existing frontier benchmarks on the same task domain. Finally, we introduce THOUGHTTERMINATOR, a training-free black box decoding technique that significantly improves reasoning model calibration.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for tabular question answering, yet calibration on structured data is largely unstudied. This paper presents the first systematic comparison of five confidence estimation methods across five frontier LLMs and two tabular QA benchmarks. All models are severely overconfident (smooth ECE 0.35-0.64 versus 0.10-0.15 reported for textual QA). A consistent self-evaluation versus perturbation dichotomy replicates across both benchmarks and all four fully-covered models: self-evaluation methods (verbalized, P(True)) achieve AUROC 0.42-0.76, while perturbation methods (semantic entropy, self-consistency, and our Multi-Format Agreement) achieve AUROC 0.78-0.86. Per-model paired bootstrap tests reject the null at p<0.001 after Holm-Bonferroni correction, and a 3-seed check on GPT-4o-mini gives a per-seed standard deviation of only 0.006. The paper proposes Multi-Format Agreement (MFA), which exploits the lossless and deterministic serialization variation unique to structured data (Markdown, HTML, JSON, CSV) to estimate confidence at 20% lower API cost than sampling baselines. MFA reduces ECE by 44-63%, generalizes across all four models on TableBench (mean AUROC 0.80), and combines complementarily with sampling: an MFA + self-consistency ensemble lifts AUROC from 0.74 to 0.82. A secondary contribution, structure-aware recalibration, improves AUROC by +10 percentage points over standard post-hoc methods.

We present a framework for evaluating data-science agents on live, continuously updated data using executable ground truth and format-agnostic factoid scoring. Consider this example query: "what were last week's audience sizes"---the reference answer changes as the underlying data changes, so static references become outdated and standard LLM-as-a-judge pipelines cannot verify responses against a fixed ground truth. Our central contribution, ground-truth-as-code, encodes each expected answer as an executable reference function that recomputes the answer directly from live data at evaluation time, ensuring the reference remains consistent with the system it describes. We combine this with a factoid-level, format-agnostic judge that decomposes both the agent's response and the computed ground truth into atomic claims and scores precision, recall, and accuracy over them, irrespective of the response format (prose, list, table, HTML, etc.). The approach is applicable to agents whose expected outputs can be expressed as executable data computations. We validate the framework through a human--LLM agreement study on an internally developed machine learning skill deployed in production, using a synthetic database constructed to reproduce production schemas and entity relationships. Relative to a natural-language ground-truth baseline, our method achieves a 29% improvement in the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC)---a class-balanced measure of agreement between expert annotators and LLM-as-a-judge predictions---and a 16% reduction in token consumption per test case, while a self-directed baseline lacking explicit ground truth is anti-correlated with human judgment. Agents that perform multi-source data integration and computation over non-stationary data are routinely deployed in industry; we propose ground-truth-as-code as a practical methodology for their evaluation.

Applications such as weather forecasting and personalized medicine demand models that output calibrated probability estimates---those representative of the true likelihood of a prediction. Most models are not calibrated out of the box but are recalibrated by post-processing model outputs. We find in this work that popular recalibration methods like Platt scaling and temperature scaling are (i) less calibrated than reported, and (ii) current techniques cannot estimate how miscalibrated they are. An alternative method, histogram binning, has measurable calibration error but is sample inefficient---it requires O(B/ε^2) samples, compared to O(1/ε^2) for scaling methods, where B is the number of distinct probabilities the model can output. To get the best of both worlds, we introduce the scaling-binning calibrator, which first fits a parametric function to reduce variance and then bins the function values to actually ensure calibration. This requires only O(1/ε^2 + B) samples. Next, we show that we can estimate a model's calibration error more accurately using an estimator from the meteorological community---or equivalently measure its calibration error with fewer samples (O(B) instead of O(B)). We validate our approach with multiclass calibration experiments on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet, where we obtain a 35% lower calibration error than histogram binning and, unlike scaling methods, guarantees on true calibration. In these experiments, we also estimate the calibration error and ECE more accurately than the commonly used plugin estimators. We implement all these methods in a Python library: https://pypi.org/project/uncertainty-calibration

As LLM-based judges become integral to industry applications, obtaining well-calibrated uncertainty estimates efficiently has become critical for production deployment. However, existing techniques, such as verbalized confidence and multi-generation methods, are often either poorly calibrated or computationally expensive. We introduce linear probes trained with a Brier score-based loss to provide calibrated uncertainty estimates from reasoning judges' hidden states, requiring no additional model training. We evaluate our approach on both objective tasks (reasoning, mathematics, factuality, coding) and subjective human preference judgments. Our results demonstrate that probes achieve superior calibration compared to existing methods with approx10x computational savings, generalize robustly to unseen evaluation domains, and deliver higher accuracy on high-confidence predictions. However, probes produce conservative estimates that underperform on easier datasets but may benefit safety-critical deployments prioritizing low false-positive rates. Overall, our work demonstrates that interpretability-based uncertainty estimation provides a practical and scalable plug-and-play solution for LLM judges in production.

Training terminal agents requires executable and verifiable tasks that are not merely solvable, but appropriately challenging for learning. Executable validation establishes feasibility, yet does not reveal how a task behaves relative to a given solver setting. In this paper, we present CalibForge, an autonomous terminal-task synthesis system that uses verified solver behavior to revise candidate tasks through adversarial solver calibration. Multi-solver calibration targets disagreement within a heterogeneous solver pool, whereas contrastive solver calibration targets a designated strong-pass/weak-fail relation; both operationalize a solver-relative learnable zone anchored in demonstrated solvability. Using CalibForge, we construct 5,431 calibrated terminal tasks. Our ablations show that both strategies yield more effective supervision than authoring and validation alone or ordinary single-solver feedback. Models trained on the full collection achieve 32.58% and 47.57% on Terminal-Bench 2.0. The largest improvements over the corresponding base model reach 24.71 percentage points on Terminal-Bench 2.0, 27.68 points on SWE-bench Pro, and 30.04 points on Doc2Repo. Together, these results support solver-relative learnability as a practical target for constructing effective and transferable agent training data.

Accurate confidence calibration in Large Language Models (LLMs) is critical for safe use in high-stakes domains, where clear verbalized confidence enhances user trust. Traditional methods that mimic reference confidence expressions often fail to capture the reasoning needed for accurate confidence assessment. We propose natural language critiques as a solution, ideally suited for confidence calibration, as precise gold confidence labels are hard to obtain and often require multiple generations. This paper studies how natural language critiques can enhance verbalized confidence, addressing: (1) What to critique: uncertainty (question-focused) or confidence (answer-specific)? Analysis shows confidence suits multiple-choice tasks, while uncertainty excels in open-ended scenarios. (2) How to critique: self-critique or critique calibration training? We propose Self-Critique, enabling LLMs to critique and optimize their confidence beyond mere accuracy, and CritiCal, a novel Critique Calibration training method that leverages natural language critiques to improve confidence calibration, moving beyond direct numerical optimization. Experiments show that CritiCal significantly outperforms Self-Critique and other competitive baselines, even surpassing its teacher model, GPT-4o, in complex reasoning tasks. CritiCal also shows robust generalization in out-of-distribution settings, advancing LLM's reliability.

Rerankers decide which documents users and LLMs see, yet their standard metric, nDCG, relies on human relevance labels that are costly, sparse, noisy, and discretely graded. As rerankers approach each other in quality, nDCG on these labels therefore increasingly fails to separate them. LLM judges could supply dense labels. Relative judgments within one query tell even close candidates apart, yet their scores share no scale across queries. Absolute grades share one scale but are too coarse to distinguish documents of similar relevance. We propose Rubric-Calibrated Preferences (RCP), which combine both kinds of judgment. A listwise Bradley-Terry tournament orders each query's documents, and a rubric of yes/no criteria of increasing stringency provides an absolute standard. Item Response Theory (IRT), which scores test-takers based on their answers to common questions, then uses the shared criteria to put all queries' tournament scores on one scale. RCP's retrieval metric, RCP-nDCG, replaces nDCG's discrete labels with the resulting calibrated relevance probabilities. Against blind grades from 46 external annotators, calibration raises the correlation between a query's mean score and its mean human grade from 0.538 to 0.795. The probabilities rank a useful document above a non-useful one with probability 0.910 (AUC, chance 0.5), versus 0.651 for the benchmark labels. When the annotators' grades prefer one of two rerankers and exactly one metric agrees, that metric is RCP-nDCG in 72.4% of 185 comparisons (chance about 53%). On TREC-DL, RCP-nDCG sides with NIST assessors' grades on every reranker pair that these grades separate significantly. RCP-nDCG also resolves many of nDCG's ties and separates 1.9 times as many reranker pairs on NanoBEIR. Rubric calibration thus turns relative LLM judgments into dense relevance labels that are comparable across queries and agree with human judgment.

When language models (LMs) are trained via reinforcement learning (RL) to generate natural language "reasoning chains", their performance improves on a variety of difficult question answering tasks. Today, almost all successful applications of RL for reasoning use binary reward functions that evaluate the correctness of LM outputs. Because such reward functions do not penalize guessing or low-confidence outputs, they often have the unintended side-effect of degrading calibration and increasing the rate at which LMs generate incorrect responses (or "hallucinate") in other problem domains. This paper describes RLCR (Reinforcement Learning with Calibration Rewards), an approach to training reasoning models that jointly improves accuracy and calibrated confidence estimation. During RLCR, LMs generate both predictions and numerical confidence estimates after reasoning. They are trained to optimize a reward function that augments a binary correctness score with a Brier score -- a scoring rule for confidence estimates that incentivizes calibrated prediction. We first prove that this reward function (or any analogous reward function that uses a bounded, proper scoring rule) yields models whose predictions are both accurate and well-calibrated. We next show that across diverse datasets, RLCR substantially improves calibration with no loss in accuracy, on both in-domain and out-of-domain evaluations -- outperforming both ordinary RL training and classifiers trained to assign post-hoc confidence scores. While ordinary RL hurts calibration, RLCR improves it. Finally, we demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be leveraged at test time to improve accuracy and calibration via confidence-weighted scaling methods. Our results show that explicitly optimizing for calibration can produce more generally reliable reasoning models.

We introduce TuneJury, an open, instance-level pairwise reward model for text-to-music that predicts a music preference score from a text prompt and an audio clip. The released checkpoint is trained on publicly available human-preference labels covering arena-style (A vs. B) votes, metric-alignment preference pairs, crowdsourced pairwise comparisons, and expert aesthetic ratings. The predicted score margin between two clips is well calibrated on our held-out test split, supporting data filtering via a simple score threshold. TuneJury generalizes to both held-out test pairs and out-of-distribution benchmarks, remaining competitive with prior baselines on the latter. For generators released after training, we introduce anchor calibration, a post-hoc, per-system Bradley-Terry calibration that recovers agreement at substantially better data efficiency than from-scratch retraining. The same frozen reward drives consistent reward-axis gains across three downstream applications: inference-time best-of-N selection, DITTO-style latent optimization, and expert-iteration post-training. TuneJury is available at https://github.com/yonghyunk1m/TuneJury.

We propose ScaleQ-1.58, a scalable ternary post-training quantization (PTQ) framework for reasoning LLMs. Its core insight stems from an empirical finding: although modern LLMs are typically trained to exhibit chain-of-thought reasoning capabilities, in the PTQ regime, even the latest CAT-Q method based on learning-based differentiable ternarization still leads to performance collapse on challenging mathematics and coding tasks when using conventional calibration schemes that ignore the model's reasoning process. Driven by this finding, we introduce a simple calibration approach, Attend to Your Own Thoughts (AYOT), where reasoning traces and final answers generated by the pre-trained high-precision target LLM on a proper set of calibration samples are used as the context input during the ternarization process, along with the corresponding questions. ScaleQ-1.58 is formed by simply integrating AYOT with CAT-Q, which demonstrates several scaling properties: (1) with only 4M calibration tokens, Qwen3-1.7B ternarized by ScaleQ-1.58 reaches over 90.52% of the performance of the prior best BitNet b1.58 2B4T averaged over 4 mathematics and coding tasks, and our ternary Qwen3-4B shows an absolute gain of 8.97%, while requiring 1,000,000x fewer calibration tokens for quantization; (2) ScaleQ-1.58 generalizes well to both dense and MoE architectures, with performance improving as model scale increases (up to 235B parameters); (3) ScaleQ-1.58 demonstrates strong generalization across tasks of varying difficulty levels, including mathematics, coding and scientific logic reasoning, as well as commonsense reasoning and basic language generation; (4) its performance continues to improve as the number of calibration tokens increases. Notably, AYOT also exhibits strong generalization ability across other quantization bit-widths. Code will be available at https://github.com/IntelChina-AI/BitTern.

Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have shown promise in accurately grading open-ended student responses. However, few prior works have explored grading handwritten responses due to a lack of data and the challenge of combining visual and textual information. In this work, we leverage state-of-the-art multi-modal AI models, in particular GPT-4o, to automatically grade handwritten responses to college-level math exams. Using real student responses to questions in a probability theory exam, we evaluate GPT-4o's alignment with ground-truth scores from human graders using various prompting techniques. We find that while providing rubrics improves alignment, the model's overall accuracy is still too low for real-world settings, showing there is significant room for growth in this task.

Large language models have made strong reasoning gains through supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and on-policy distillation, yet these post-training methods are usually evaluated only by final-answer accuracy. We study how they reshape confidence during reasoning. We introduce a three-stage calibration framework that evaluates confidence before, during, and after chain-of-thought generation, corresponding to difficulty estimation, early termination, and answer aggregation. Through a controlled comparison on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, we find that OPD provides the most useful pre-reasoning confidence, SFT gives the strongest online signal for early stopping, and RL produces the most reliable trace-level signal for aggregation. We further show that confidence reliability is position-dependent: RL confidence becomes informative after a path-commitment phase, while OPD confidence is useful early but can become inversely calibrated later. Based on this observation, we propose PosConf, a position-aware confidence strategy that uses confidence only from reliable relative-position intervals. PosConf improves RL answer aggregation by 6.1 points over majority voting and consistently improves OPD early stopping under tight token budgets, with gains up to 4.3 points by avoiding its later inverse-calibration region, showing that confidence in reasoning models should be used both stage-wise and position-awarely. Our code is available at https://github.com/EIT-NLP/Post-Training-Calibration.

Verifying the final answer of a long reasoning trace may show that the trace is wrong but it does not distinguish three cases. The problem may lie beyond the model's capability, another attempt would succeed, or one step in an otherwise recoverable trace made the trace fail. Standard hidden-state probes are trained on final-answer correctness, a label that conflates these cases. Monte Carlo rollouts distinguish the cases and locate the failing step at additional inference cost. We test the hidden states of 4B and 8B reasoning models for the failure type and the failing step and compare each probe with the strongest baseline that uses no hidden states. On incorrect 8B traces, the confidence probe, a calibrated correctness probe at a midpoint cutoff, misses 81% of cases in which a single step makes the trace unrecoverable and 47% of cases in which another attempt would succeed. A probe with a different training design over the same states reverses the ordering of these two kinds of failure, so either ordering can be read from those states. At both scales, no single tested probe locates the failing step more accurately than a rule based only on trace length, and at 4B a probe trained to predict that step fails to outperform this rule in any of 10 runs on identical traces. The confidence probe therefore indicates that an answer is wrong, but its failure-type ordering depends on its training design.

Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

This paper presents MathBode, a dynamic diagnostic for mathematical reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Instead of one-shot accuracy, MathBode treats each parametric problem as a system: we drive a single parameter sinusoidally and fit first-harmonic responses of model outputs and exact solutions. This yields interpretable, frequency-resolved metrics -- gain (amplitude tracking) and phase (lag) -- that form Bode-style fingerprints. Across five closed-form families (linear solve, ratio/saturation, compound interest, 2x2 linear systems, similar triangles), the diagnostic surfaces systematic low-pass behavior and growing phase lag that accuracy alone obscures. We compare several models against a symbolic baseline that calibrates the instrument (G approx 1, phi approx 0). Results separate frontier from mid-tier models on dynamics, providing a compact, reproducible protocol that complements standard benchmarks with actionable measurements of reasoning fidelity and consistency. We open-source the dataset and code to enable further research and adoption.

This paper provides an experimentally verified formal law for calculating the uplift that diversity of thought provides in Large Language Model (LLM) ensembles. From first principles, we derive an exact decomposition of LLM ensemble lift into rescue and damage masses, which yields a compact heuristic for calculating uplift. From this we extract the metrics which predict ensemble performance: an accuracy adjusted correctness correlation, ϕ_{adj}, together with the accuracy gap and collective accuracy of the pair. We test the law on 767,520 inferences from ten open-weight models over two graduate-level science benchmarks, together with a novel agentic cybersecurity benchmark in which each model conducts digital-forensics investigations by multi-turn tool use in a network-isolated sandbox (23,520 graded trials including abstentions); all votes are released openly. Calibrated once on SuperGPQA at a 40:60 vote split, the heuristic predicts lift on the calibration set with Spearman's ρ=0.84 and, with its coefficients frozen, transfers to two datasets never used in calibration (ρ=0.51 on GPQA Diamond and 0.84 on the forensic tasks), whilst the measured swap mass tracks realised lift with R^2ge 0.96 throughout. Raw ϕ has almost no predictive power (R^2le 0.09 throughout); the accuracy-adjusted ϕ_{adj} is markedly superior (R^2=0.67 on SuperGPQA), and the heuristic combining these metrics is the most stable pre pooling predictor across the three datasets.

Candidate-scoring decision models return a probability distribution over a presented set of answers. Public documentation of one such system, Jev, and of an open counterpart, JevAny, describes three training ingredients that determine what these probabilities estimate: soft targets from larger models, a frozen pretrained backbone and temperature calibration. We analyze each ingredient in Gaussian surrogates where the finite-sample risk can be computed exactly. A student trained on teacher targets inherits the teacher's bias, which more student data does not remove and agreement with the teacher does not reveal. A fixed representation lowers the risk only below an explicit sample-size threshold. In a probit model the exact recalibration map is a temperature scaling, which removes all excess risk only when the teacher's coefficient has the correct direction and otherwise leaves a residual that calibration diagnostics do not detect. Under Luce's choice axiom, candidate scores are coherent across refinements of an event if and only if they aggregate by log-sum-exp. On 231,521 credit card complaints from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where the decision is whether a complaint ends in monetary relief, a student trained on a logistic teacher's probabilities ends at the teacher's decision cost while a student trained on outcomes goes 8% below it, a 30B model read zero-shot remains worse than the teacher after recalibration, and that model departs from the coherence condition by 17.5 decibans. Pretrained representations reduce the labeled data required and calibration corrects the scale of the probabilities, but neither corrects a biased teacher, so the probabilities have to be checked against realized outcomes.

We introduce a transfer learning framework for regression that leverages heterogeneous source domains to improve predictive performance in a data-scarce target domain. Our approach fits a conditional generative model to each source domain and calibrates a shared linear combination of the generated responses via conditional quantile matching at the observed target covariates. The calibration aligns the conditional response distributions while accommodating simultaneous shifts in both the covariate and conditional response distributions. The calibrated responses then serve as pseudo-labels to augment the target data for a broad class of downstream learning tasks. Theoretically, we derive an excess risk bound for an empirical risk minimizer (ERM) trained on the augmented data, separating the benefit of an enlarged training sample from errors due to density ratio estimation, source generator estimation, conditional calibration, and irreducible transfer bias. Empirically, simulations and real-data applications show that the proposed method can improve target-domain prediction when the transfer bias is small.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities out of box for a wide range of applications, yet accuracy still remains a major growth area, especially in mission-critical domains such as biomedicine. An effective method to calibrate the confidence level on LLM responses is essential to automatically detect errors and facilitate human-in-the-loop verification. An important source of calibration signals stems from expert-stipulated programmatic supervision, which is often available at low cost but has its own limitations such as noise and coverage. In this paper, we introduce a Pareto optimal self-supervision framework that can leverage available programmatic supervision to systematically calibrate LLM responses by producing a risk score for every response, without any additional manual efforts. This is accomplished by learning a harmonizer model to align LLM output with other available supervision sources, which would assign higher risk scores to more uncertain LLM responses and facilitate error correction. Experiments on standard relation extraction tasks in biomedical and general domains demonstrate the promise of this approach, with our proposed risk scores highly correlated with the real error rate of LLMs. For the most uncertain test instances, dynamic prompting based on our proposed risk scores results in significant accuracy improvement for off-the-shelf LLMs, boosting GPT-3 results past state-of-the-art (SOTA) weak supervision and GPT-4 results past SOTA supervised results on challenging evaluation datasets.

Extractive Question Answering (EQA) in Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC) often faces the challenge of dealing with semantically identical but format-variant inputs. Our work introduces a novel approach, called the ``Query Latent Semantic Calibrator (QLSC)'', designed as an auxiliary module for existing MRC models. We propose a unique scaling strategy to capture latent semantic center features of queries. These features are then seamlessly integrated into traditional query and passage embeddings using an attention mechanism. By deepening the comprehension of the semantic queries-passage relationship, our approach diminishes sensitivity to variations in text format and boosts the model's capability in pinpointing accurate answers. Experimental results on robust Question-Answer datasets confirm that our approach effectively handles format-variant but semantically identical queries, highlighting the effectiveness and adaptability of our proposed method.

Aggregate accuracy summarizes how often a model is correct, but not which judgments remain correct when requests change. We evaluate Jev and nine language models on ContractNLI, with repeated requests that preserve the contract and target while varying visible hypotheses, requested answers, and output order. A four-model follow-up adds an equal-call repetition control and coverage of the remaining test contracts. Corrections and regressions can cancel, leaving unchanged accuracy despite changed decisions; consistent answers can also preserve errors. Majority voting over recorded responses yields small, uncertain gains, with repeated wrong answers accounting for much of the observed error. Gold-class diagnostics further reveal different error profiles behind aggregate model rankings. Resource comparisons add distinct trade-offs: Jev is cheapest and fastest for the joint baseline, while hosted language models achieve higher accuracy. Together, these findings connect decision-level evaluation to whether additional calls improve correctness and what the resulting decisions cost.

We introduce Self-Anchoring Calibration Drift (SACD), a hypothesized tendency for large language models (LLMs) to show systematic changes in expressed confidence when building iteratively on their own prior outputs across multi-turn conversations. We report an empirical study comparing three frontier models -- Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.2 -- across 150 questions spanning factual, technical, and open-ended domains, using three conditions: single-turn baseline (A), multi-turn self-anchoring (B), and independent repetition control (C). Results reveal a complex, model-heterogeneous pattern that partially diverges from pre-registered hypotheses. Claude Sonnet 4.6 exhibited significant decreasing confidence under self-anchoring (mean CDS = -0.032, t(14) = -2.43, p = .029, d = -0.627), while also showing significant calibration error drift (F(4,56) = 22.77, p < .001, eta^2 = .791). GPT-5.2 showed the opposite pattern in open-ended domains (mean CDS = +0.026) with significant ECE escalation by Turn 5. Gemini 3.1 Pro showed no significant CDS (t(14) = 0.38, p = .710), but its Condition C data reveals a striking ECE pattern: without self-anchoring, Gemini's calibration error drops from .327 to near zero across repetitions, whereas self-anchoring holds ECE flat at approximately .333 -- indicating that SACD can manifest as suppression of natural calibration improvement rather than ac

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable success in open-book question answering (QA), where the task requires generating answers grounded in a provided external context. A critical challenge in open-book QA is to ensure that model responses are based on the provided context rather than its parametric knowledge, which can be outdated, incomplete, or incorrect. Existing evaluation methods, primarily based on the LLM-as-a-judge approach, face significant limitations, including biases, scalability issues, and dependence on costly external systems. To address these challenges, we propose a novel metric that contrasts the perplexity of the model response under two conditions: when the context is provided and when it is not. The resulting score quantifies the extent to which the model's answer relies on the provided context. The validity of this metric is demonstrated through a series of experiments that show its effectiveness in identifying whether a given answer is grounded in the provided context. Unlike existing approaches, this metric is computationally efficient, interpretable, and adaptable to various use cases, offering a scalable and practical solution to assess context utilization in open-book QA systems.

LLM conformity is often used to describe cases where a model changes a correct answer toward a peer or group response. We show that most of this apparent conformity survives even after the peer is removed. The reason is a confound: standard conformity prompts mix two cues at once, the presence of a speaker and the repeated wrong answer itself. Existing benchmarks vary these cues together, so they cannot tell how much of the revision actually depends on the speaker. We introduce a no-source condition: the same asserted answer with the explicit speaker removed. Across six open-weight LLMs and seven QA and reasoning datasets, this condition alone causes harmful revision in 66.5% of initially correct cases, compared with 10.3% under a plain re-ask. The effect also remains when the repeated answer is paraphrased and when answer options are hidden in an open-ended setting. Source framing mainly modulates this floor: expert-panel framing raises it, while minimal person labels do not reliably raise it. When models flip, they are usually confidently wrong, and simple recalibration does not recover the original answer. Source attribution still matters, but it should be measured as an increment above this speaker-free floor. The methodological lesson is that conformity benchmarks should first measure what remains after the speaker is removed; without this step, benchmarks may mistake repeated text for social influence.

The use of large language models (LLMs) as automated evaluation tools to assess the quality of generated natural language, known as LLMs-as-Judges, has demonstrated promising capabilities and is rapidly gaining widespread attention. However, when applied to pairwise comparisons of candidate responses, LLM-based evaluators often exhibit selection bias. Specifically, their judgments may become inconsistent when the option positions or ID tokens are swapped, compromising the effectiveness and fairness of the evaluation result. To address this challenge, we introduce CalibraEval, a novel label-free method for mitigating selection bias during inference. Specifically, CalibraEval reformulates debiasing as an optimization task aimed at adjusting observed prediction distributions to align with unbiased prediction distributions. To solve this optimization problem, we propose a non-parametric order-preserving algorithm (NOA). This algorithm leverages the partial order relationships between model prediction distributions, thereby eliminating the need for explicit labels and precise mathematical function modeling.Empirical evaluations of LLMs in multiple representative benchmarks demonstrate that CalibraEval effectively mitigates selection bias and improves performance compared to existing debiasing methods. This work marks a step toward building more robust and unbiased automated evaluation frameworks, paving the way for improved reliability in AI-driven assessments

Calibration of language models -- the alignment between expressed or implicit confidence and empirical correctness -- is a well-studied subfield within NLP. Methods to measure it already exist. The problem is adoption: outside this subfield, NLP research regularly introduces new models, datasets, and benchmarks without checking whether the model's confidence scores are meaningful. We argue that this adoption gap is a major obstacle to trustworthy LLM evaluation. Miscalibration causes problems in two distinct areas: at deployment, where overconfident mistakes cause real harm, and inside the research pipeline, where methods like LLM-as-a-judge, synthetic data generation, and active learning rely on calibrated confidence without verifying it. Standard calibration metrics only require two inputs per example: a confidence score and a correctness judgment. Most benchmarks in use today already provide both, meaning calibration can be reported immediately. For open-ended generation, however, defining these two inputs is still an open challenge. We argue that each NLP subfield should pair its main performance metric with a calibration score and call for treating calibration as an essential property of every model rather than a niche topic.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current answer correctness (AC) metrics do not align with human judgments, particularly verbose, free form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big. LLM based scorers correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing clear guidelines for evaluating machine QA adopted from human QA contests. We also introduce Precise ANswer correctness Determination and Adjudication (PANDA), a small, efficient, deterministic AC classifier (812 KB) that more accurately evaluates answer correctness.

Risk-budgeted throughput forecasting converts a point forecast of LEO satellite capacity into a conservative bound whose overestimation rate is held at a user-specified budget, so that admission control can act on it safely. We reproduce the state of the art, BG-CFQS, on the three Starlink traces its authors used and on an independent fourth dataset, and report four findings. First, its risk guarantee is reproducible but conditional on the calibration split: under a random split we recover every published quantity, including risk-pass on 3 of 3 datasets, but under a contiguous temporal split, which is what a deployed terminal faces, it holds on 1 of 3. Second, independent of any split, the method cannot serve a risk budget below 0.15, the low end of its candidate quantile set. On all four datasets the achieved rate is identical at budgets of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.15, overshooting by 1.4x to 3.7x at the tightest. Third, static conformal calibration cannot improve a ranking, only shift an operating point; we confirm this exactly on latency spike detection, where online calibration improves AUPRC by up to 51%. Fourth, group-conditional online recalibration splits into two mechanisms. The online part replicates: it tracks the budget within 1% from 0.05 to 0.35, where static calibration is 16 to 21% off. The group-conditional part does not: on three of four datasets, conditioning on any available covariate, including measured serving-satellite geometry, is worse than not conditioning, and our attempt to predict which datasets benefit failed. What is new here is empirical, not algorithmic: we claim the findings, not the methods.

Radiological imaging is central to diagnosis, treatment planning, and clinical decision-making. Vision-language foundation models have spurred interest in automated radiology report generation (RRG), but safe deployment requires reliable clinical evaluation of generated reports. Existing metrics often rely on surface-level similarity or behave as black boxes, lacking interpretability. We introduce ICARE (Interpretable and Clinically-grounded Agent-based Report Evaluation), an interpretable evaluation framework leveraging large language model agents and dynamic multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). Two agents, each with either the ground-truth or generated report, generate clinically meaningful questions and quiz each other. Agreement on answers captures preservation and consistency of findings, serving as interpretable proxies for clinical precision and recall. By linking scores to question-answer pairs, ICARE enables transparent, and interpretable assessment. Clinician studies show ICARE aligns significantly more with expert judgment than prior metrics. Perturbation analyses confirm sensitivity to clinical content and reproducibility, while model comparisons reveal interpretable error patterns.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) hold considerable promise for applications in healthcare. However, their deployment in safety-critical settings is hindered by two key limitations: (i) sensitivity to prompt design, and (ii) a tendency to generate incorrect responses with high confidence. As clinicians may rely on a model's stated confidence to gauge the reliability of its predictions, it is especially important that when a model expresses high confidence, it is also highly accurate. We introduce Prompt4Trust, the first reinforcement learning (RL) framework for prompt augmentation targeting confidence calibration in MLLMs. A lightweight LLM is trained to produce context-aware auxiliary prompts that guide a downstream task MLLM to generate responses in which the expressed confidence more accurately reflects predictive accuracy. Unlike conventional calibration techniques, Prompt4Trust specifically prioritizes aspects of calibration most critical for safe and trustworthy clinical decision-making. Beyond improvements driven by this clinically motivated calibration objective, our proposed method also improves task accuracy, achieving state-of-the-art medical visual question answering (VQA) performance on the PMC-VQA benchmark, which is composed of multiple-choice questions spanning diverse medical imaging modalities. Moreover, our framework trained with a small downstream task MLLM showed promising zero-shot generalization to larger MLLMs in our experiments, suggesting the potential for scalable calibration without the associated computational costs. This work demonstrates the potential of automated yet human-aligned prompt engineering for improving the the trustworthiness of MLLMs in safety critical settings. Our codebase can be found at https://github.com/xingbpshen/prompt4trust.

In the realms of computer vision and natural language processing, Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have become indispensable tools, proficient in generating textual descriptions based on visual inputs. Despite their advancements, our investigation reveals a noteworthy bias in the generated content, where the output is primarily influenced by the underlying Large Language Models (LLMs) prior rather than the input image. Our empirical experiments underscore the persistence of this bias, as LVLMs often provide confident answers even in the absence of relevant images or given incongruent visual input. To rectify these biases and redirect the model's focus toward vision information, we introduce two simple, training-free strategies. Firstly, for tasks such as classification or multi-choice question-answering (QA), we propose a ``calibration'' step through affine transformation to adjust the output distribution. This ``Post-Hoc debias'' approach ensures uniform scores for each answer when the image is absent, serving as an effective regularization technique to alleviate the influence of LLM priors. For more intricate open-ended generation tasks, we extend this method to ``Debias sampling'', drawing inspirations from contrastive decoding methods. Furthermore, our investigation sheds light on the instability of LVLMs across various decoding configurations. Through systematic exploration of different settings, we significantly enhance performance, surpassing reported results and raising concerns about the fairness of existing evaluations. Comprehensive experiments substantiate the effectiveness of our proposed strategies in mitigating biases. These strategies not only prove beneficial in minimizing hallucinations but also contribute to the generation of more helpful and precise illustrations.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly exhibit human-like patterns of pragmatic and social reasoning. This paper addresses two related questions: do LLMs approximate human social meaning not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, and can prompting strategies informed by pragmatic theory improve this approximation? To address the first, we introduce two calibration-focused metrics distinguishing structural fidelity from magnitude calibration: the Effect Size Ratio (ESR) and the Calibration Deviation Score (CDS). To address the second, we derive prompting conditions from two pragmatic assumptions: that social meaning arises from reasoning over linguistic alternatives, and that listeners infer speaker knowledge states and communicative motives. Applied to a case study on numerical (im)precision across three frontier LLMs, we find that all models reliably reproduce the qualitative structure of human social inferences but differ substantially in magnitude calibration. Prompting models to reason about speaker knowledge and motives most consistently reduces magnitude deviation, while prompting for alternative-awareness tends to amplify exaggeration. Combining both components is the only intervention that improves all calibration-sensitive metrics across all models, though fine-grained magnitude calibration remains only partially resolved. LLMs thus capture inferential structure while variably distorting inferential strength, and pragmatic theory provides a useful but incomplete handle for improving that approximation.