Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

GRACE: A Granular Benchmark for Evaluating Model Calibration against Human Calibration

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 2502.19684 v1 pith:UOX4YT73 submitted 2025-02-27 cs.CL

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

Language models are often miscalibrated, leading to confidently incorrect answers. We introduce GRACE, a benchmark for language model calibration that incorporates comparison with human calibration. GRACE consists of question-answer pairs, in which each question contains a series of clues that gradually become easier, all leading to the same answer; models must answer correctly as early as possible as the clues are revealed. This setting permits granular measurement of model calibration based on how early, accurately, and confidently a model answers. After collecting these questions, we host live human vs. model competitions to gather 1,749 data points on human and model teams' timing, accuracy, and confidence. We propose a metric, CalScore, that uses GRACE to analyze model calibration errors and identify types of model miscalibration that differ from human behavior. We find that although humans are less accurate than models, humans are generally better calibrated. Since state-of-the-art models struggle on GRACE, it effectively evaluates progress on improving model calibration.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs show average overconfidence moderated by a strong hard-easy effect, quantified across tasks and via the new LifeEval actuarial-probability benchmark.

  2. From Calibration to Collaboration: LLM Uncertainty Quantification Should Be More Human-Centered

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLM uncertainty quantification should be judged by whether it improves real human decisions, not by calibration scores on trivia benchmarks.

Pith tools