Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research introduces a novel framework for evaluating the reliability of language models by analyzing how well their confidence scores align with actual relational knowledge accuracy. The study finds that many models, particularly those trained with masking objectives, exhibit significant overconfidence, which can be mitigated by incorporating paraphrase consistency and increasing answer options. These findings are critical for advancing trustworthy AI systems where understanding model uncertainty is as important as raw predictive performance.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Self-Aware Knowledge Probing: Evaluating Language Models' Relational Knowledge through Confidence Calibration

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2601.18901v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Knowledge probing quantifies how much relational knowledge a language model (LM) has acquired during pre-training. Existing knowledge probes evaluate model capabilities through metrics like prediction accuracy and precision. Such evaluations fail to account for the model's reliability, reflected in the calibration of its confidence scores. In this paper, we establish an empirical framework to evaluate the calibration of relational knowledge in a closed answer-set setting. We cover three modalities of model confidence: (1) intrinsic confidence, (2) paraphrase consistency and (3) linguistic confidence. Our extensive analysis of 21 causal and 8 masked language models reveals that most models, but especially those pre-trained with the masking objective, are overconfident. The best-calibrated scores come from confidence estimates that account for inconsistencies due to statement rephrasing. Moreover, calibration improves when increasing the number of answer options.

Abstract:Knowledge probing quantifies how much relational knowledge a language model (LM) has acquired during pre-training. Existing knowledge probes evaluate model capabilities through metrics like prediction accuracy and precision. Such evaluations fail to account for the model's reliability, reflected in the calibration of its confidence scores. In this paper, we establish an empirical framework to evaluate the calibration of relational knowledge in a closed answer-set setting. We cover three modalities of model confidence: (1) intrinsic confidence, (2) paraphrase consistency and (3) linguistic confidence. Our extensive analysis of 21 causal and 8 masked language models reveals that most models, but especially those pre-trained with the masking objective, are overconfident. The best-calibrated scores come from confidence estimates that account for inconsistencies due to statement rephrasing. Moreover, calibration improves when increasing the number of answer options.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2601.18901 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2601.18901v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.18901 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 225 words

Related coverage