Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the relationship between linguistic expressions in LLM reasoning and model confidence using regression analysis to predict confidence based on n-grams. The study reveals that specific n-grams are associated with overconfidence in LLMs, even when reasoning is involved, across various models and QA benchmarks. Critically, suppressing these overconfident expressions can calibrate confidence without sacrificing performance, suggesting a targeted approach to improving LLM reliability.
Suppressing specific linguistic expressions can calibrate LLM confidence without hurting performance, offering a surprisingly simple fix for overconfidence.
While large language models (LLMs) improve performance by explicit reasoning, their responses are often overconfident, even though they include linguistic expressions demonstrating uncertainty. In this work, we identify what linguistic expressions are related to confidence by applying the regression method. Specifically, we predict confidence of those linguistic expressions in the reasoning parts of LLMs as the dependent variables and analyze the relationship between a specific $n$-gram and confidence. Across multiple models and QA benchmarks, we show that LLMs remain overconfident when reasoning is involved and attribute this behavior to specific linguistic information. Interestingly, several of the extracted expressions coincide with cue phrases intentionally inserted on test-time scaling to improve reasoning performance. Through our test on causality and verification that the extracted linguistic information truly affects confidence, we reveal that confidence calibration is possible by simply suppressing those overconfident expressions without drops in performance.