Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Can We Trust LLMs? Mitigate Overconfidence Bias in LLMs through Knowledge Transfer

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

arxiv 2405.16856 v1 pith:CDFZ46NY submitted 2024-05-27 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords llmsmethodknowledgeacrossbiasconfidencemethodsmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The study explores mitigating overconfidence bias in LLMs to improve their reliability. We introduce a knowledge transfer (KT) method utilizing chain of thoughts, where "big" LLMs impart knowledge to "small" LLMs via detailed, sequential reasoning paths. This method uses advanced reasoning of larger models to fine-tune smaller models, enabling them to produce more accurate predictions with calibrated confidence. Experimental evaluation using multiple-choice questions and sentiment analysis across diverse datasets demonstrated the KT method's superiority over the vanilla and question-answer pair (QA) fine-tuning methods. The most significant improvement in three key metrics, where the KT method outperformed the vanilla and QA methods by an average of 55.3% and 43.1%, respectively. These findings underscore the KT method's potential in enhancing model trustworthiness and accuracy, offering precise outputs with well-matched confidence levels across various contexts.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Reliability Scaling Laws for Quantized Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reliability of quantized LLMs peaks nonlinearly at 4-bit precision under fixed total model bits, while accuracy scales monotonically, and quantization can improve robustness to natural perturbations.

  2. Scaling Truth: The Confidence Paradox in AI Fact-Checking

    cs.SI 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across LLM fact-checking, model scale correlates with an inverse pattern of accuracy and decisiveness: smaller models are overconfident and less accurate, larger models are accurate but overly cautious.

  3. Decision Protocols in Multi-Agent Large Language Model Conversations

    cs.MA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Consensus decision protocols beat voting/judge on knowledge QA for Llama-3 multi-agent chats, while voting and judge win on logic tasks; independent initial drafts raise accuracy and extra voting-time info barely helps.

Pith tools