analiza aiqbench
This research investigates the misalignment between LLMs' verbal expressions of confidence and their internal probabilistic states across classification and generation tasks. The study finds that while prompt engineering can influence reported confidence distributions, linguistic assurances often fail to correlate reliably with actual model uncertainty, supporting a "lossy-channel" view of self-reported certainty. For developers building reliable AI systems, these findings highlight the necessity of multi-axis diagnostic metrics rather than relying solely on textual confidence markers for downstream reliability pipelines.
When Linguistic and Internal Confidence Diverge in Large Language Models
arXiv:2608.28382v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Users often ask large language models (LLMs) to report how confident they are, but it is unclear whether such linguistic confidence tracks the model's internal confidence. We study this question across 8 classification tasks, 2 generation tasks and 30 models from three families. For classification, we compare linguistic confidence with logits-based confidence along three axes: association, magnitude agreement and calibration. For generation, we test whether linguistic confidence tracks semantic-entropy-based uncertainty. The axes frequently diverge. Instance-level association is weak on average, although it improves on easier items and for stronger base models. Instruction-tuned models often report higher confidence and sometimes show higher association, but they also have larger confidence gaps and worse calibration. Prompt design mostly changes the distribution of reported confidence. Attitude cues inflate confidence without improving alignment, while score exemplars can preserve rank-order signal when they avoid collapsed confidence values. Regression analyses show that distributional properties of confidence scores explain much of the observed alignment pattern, with model metadata playing a smaller role after controls. These results support a lossy-channel view of linguistic confidence. A more dispersed verbal confidence distribution can carry useful rank information, but it does not make the scores calibrated. Linguistic confidence should therefore be evaluated with multi-axis diagnostics before being used in downstream reliability pipelines.
Abstract:Users often ask large language models (LLMs) to report how confident they are, but it is unclear whether such linguistic confidence tracks the model's internal confidence. We study this question across 8 classification tasks, 2 generation tasks and 30 models from three families. For classification, we compare linguistic confidence with logits-based confidence along three axes: association, magnitude agreement and calibration. For generation, we test whether linguistic confidence tracks semantic-entropy-based uncertainty. The axes frequently diverge. Instance-level association is weak on average, although it improves on easier items and for stronger base models. Instruction-tuned models often report higher confidence and sometimes show higher association, but they also have larger confidence gaps and worse calibration. Prompt design mostly changes the distribution of reported confidence. Attitude cues inflate confidence without improving alignment, while score exemplars can preserve rank-order signal when they avoid collapsed confidence values. Regression analyses show that distributional properties of confidence scores explain much of the observed alignment pattern, with model metadata playing a smaller role after controls. These results support a lossy-channel view of linguistic confidence. A more dispersed verbal confidence distribution can carry useful rank information, but it does not make the scores calibrated. Linguistic confidence should therefore be evaluated with multi-axis diagnostics before being used in downstream reliability pipelines.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.28382 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.28382v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.28382 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 308 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Quantifying Faithful Confidence Expression in Large Reasoning Models
arXiv · 3 iun. 2026
Angles of attack for continual learning safety
LessWrong · 16 iun. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026