Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the limitations of confidence estimation in LLMs for classification tasks, highlighting the issue of extreme sparsity in verbalized confidence outputs across multiple datasets. The authors demonstrate that this sparsity not only limits practical utility but also skews evaluation metrics, particularly the area under the accuracy-rejection curve (AUARC), depending on the interpolation method used. By introducing a method called verbalization logprobs, which weights verbalized confidence values by token probabilities, they achieve a significant improvement in AUARC without increasing inference costs.
Confidence estimates from LLMs can be misleading due to extreme sparsity, but a novel weighting method can enhance their reliability and evaluation accuracy.
Confidence estimation is essential when LLMs are used for classification, indicating when predictions can be trusted. However, common approaches such as verbalization produce extremely sparse outputs. For instance, Qwen3-32B verbalizes only eight unique confidence values on SST-2, with over half being exactly 95%, a pattern we observe consistently across four datasets and two LLMs. Besides limiting practical utility, we show that this sparsity critically affects evaluation: the choice of interpolation in area under the accuracy-rejection curve (AUARC) dramatically alters rankings, with consistency sampling dropping from best to worst under stepwise versus linear interpolation. We advocate for standardizing stepwise interpolation for a fairer comparison. Under such a fair evaluation, we find that weighting verbalized digits by token probabilities, a method we term verbalization logprobs, addresses sparsity and achieves the best AUARC (+2.3 points over vanilla verbalization) without incurring additional inference cost.
