Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Reconfidencing LLMs from the Grouping Loss Perspective

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 2402.04957 v3 pith:OY2K5T7P submitted 2024-02-07 cs.CL

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

Large Language Models (LLMs), including ChatGPT and LLaMA, are susceptible to generating hallucinated answers in a confident tone. While efforts to elicit and calibrate confidence scores have proven useful, recent findings show that controlling uncertainty must go beyond calibration: predicted scores may deviate significantly from the actual posterior probabilities due to the impact of grouping loss. In this work, we construct a new evaluation dataset derived from a knowledge base to assess confidence scores given to answers of Mistral and LLaMA. Experiments show that they tend to be overconfident. Further, we show that they are more overconfident on some answers than others, \emph{eg} depending on the nationality of the person in the query. In uncertainty-quantification theory, this is grouping loss. To address this, we propose a solution to reconfidence LLMs, canceling not only calibration but also grouping loss. The LLMs, after the reconfidencing process, indicate improved confidence alignment with the accuracy of their responses.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Balanced Training Data Augmentation for Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DPO-optimized LLM data augmentation with label balancing improves ABSA accuracy and F1 on most English benchmarks, but the balancing benefit is inconsistent.

  2. Whose Name Comes Up? Auditing LLM-Based Scholar Recommendations

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An audit of six open-weight LLMs shows that AI-generated scholar recommendations favor senior, highly cited, White and male scientists and often fail multi-constraint queries.

Pith tools