REVIEW 8 cited by
Calibration of Pre-trained Transformers
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Can LLM Rerankers Predict Their Own Ranking Performance?
LLM rerankers can internally predict ranking quality via self-consistency of sampled outputs, matching SOTA external QPP while direct confidence is overconfident; supervised token-efficient methods improve calibration.
-
Learning When Not to Decide: A Framework for Overcoming Factual Presumptuousness in AI Adjudication
A new structured prompting method (SPEC) helps AI detect insufficient evidence in adjudication tasks and defer decisions appropriately, reaching 89% accuracy on a benchmark varying information completeness from Colora...
-
How Good are LLM-based Rerankers? An Empirical Analysis of State-of-the-Art Reranking Models
On a new benchmark of post-April 2025 queries, LLM rerankers show a 5-15% performance drop compared with familiar benchmarks, and lightweight models match them on efficiency and sometimes accuracy.
-
On the Blessing of Pre-training in Weak-to-Strong Generalization
Pre-training provides a geometric warm start in a single-index model that enables weak-to-strong generalization up to a supervisor-limited bound, with empirical phase-transition evidence in LLMs.
-
Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know
Language models show good calibration when asked to estimate the probability that their own answers are correct, with performance improving as models get larger.
-
Calibrating Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Summarization
A reference-free proxy scoring framework combined with GIRB calibration produces better-aligned evaluation metrics for summarization and outperforms baselines across seven datasets.
-
Enhancing Trustworthy GUI Grounding via Self-Critiqued Reinforcement Learning
HyperClick trains GUI grounding models with GRPO to output clicks plus confidence scores, jointly rewarding correct clicks and Brier-calibrated confidence, and reports SOTA accuracy on six of seven benchmarks with bet...
-
Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment
Survey organizes LLM trustworthiness into seven categories and 29 sub-categories, measures eight sub-categories on popular models, and finds that more aligned models generally score higher but with varying effectiveness.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.