Daily Papers

Overconfidence and underconfidence in machine learning classifiers is measured by calibration: the degree to which the probabilities predicted for each class match the accuracy of the classifier on that prediction. How one measures calibration remains a challenge: expected calibration error, the most popular metric, has numerous flaws which we outline, and there is no clear empirical understanding of how its choices affect conclusions in practice, and what recommendations there are to counteract its flaws. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive empirical study of choices in calibration measures including measuring all probabilities rather than just the maximum prediction, thresholding probability values, class conditionality, number of bins, bins that are adaptive to the datapoint density, and the norm used to compare accuracies to confidences. To analyze the sensitivity of calibration measures, we study the impact of optimizing directly for each variant with recalibration techniques. Across MNIST, Fashion MNIST, CIFAR-10/100, and ImageNet, we find that conclusions on the rank ordering of recalibration methods is drastically impacted by the choice of calibration measure. We find that conditioning on the class leads to more effective calibration evaluations, and that using the L2 norm rather than the L1 norm improves both optimization for calibration metrics and the rank correlation measuring metric consistency. Adaptive binning schemes lead to more stablity of metric rank ordering when the number of bins vary, and is also recommended. We open source a library for the use of our calibration measures.

Label smoothing (LS) is a popular regularisation method for training deep neural network classifiers due to its effectiveness in improving test accuracy and its simplicity in implementation. "Hard" one-hot labels are "smoothed" by uniformly distributing probability mass to other classes, reducing overfitting. In this work, we reveal that LS negatively affects selective classification (SC) - where the aim is to reject misclassifications using a model's predictive uncertainty. We first demonstrate empirically across a range of tasks and architectures that LS leads to a consistent degradation in SC. We then explain this by analysing logit-level gradients, showing that LS exacerbates overconfidence and underconfidence by regularising the max logit more when the probability of error is low, and less when the probability of error is high. This elucidates previously reported experimental results where strong classifiers underperform in SC. We then demonstrate the empirical effectiveness of logit normalisation for recovering lost SC performance caused by LS. Furthermore, based on our gradient analysis, we explain why such normalisation is effective. We will release our code shortly.

Standard Knowledge Distillation (KD) compresses Large Language Models (LLMs) by optimizing final outputs, yet it typically treats the teacher's intermediate layer's thought process as a black box. While feature-based distillation attempts to bridge this gap, existing methods (e.g., MSE and asymmetric KL divergence) ignore the rich uncertainty profiles required for the final output. In this paper, we introduce DistillLens, a framework that symmetrically aligns the evolving thought processes of student and teacher models. By projecting intermediate hidden states into the vocabulary space via the Logit Lens, we enforce structural alignment using a symmetric divergence objective. Our analysis proves that this constraint imposes a dual-sided penalty, preventing both overconfidence and underconfidence while preserving the high-entropy information conduits essential for final deduction. Extensive experiments on GPT-2 and Llama architectures demonstrate that DistillLens consistently outperforms standard KD and feature-transfer baselines on diverse instruction-following benchmarks. The code is available at https://github.com/manishdhakal/DistillLens.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce confident but incorrect answers in settings where abstention would be safer. Standard evaluation protocols, however, require a response and do not account for how confidence should guide decisions under different risk preferences. To address this gap, we introduce the Behavioral Alignment Score (BAS), a decision-theoretic metric for evaluating how well LLM confidence supports abstention-aware decision making. BAS is derived from an explicit answer-or-abstain utility model and aggregates realized utility across a continuum of risk thresholds, yielding a measure of decision-level reliability that depends on both the magnitude and ordering of confidence. We show theoretically that truthful confidence estimates uniquely maximize expected BAS utility, linking calibration to decision-optimal behavior. BAS is related to proper scoring rules such as log loss, but differs structurally: log loss penalizes underconfidence and overconfidence symmetrically, whereas BAS imposes an asymmetric penalty that strongly prioritizes avoiding overconfident errors. Using BAS alongside widely used metrics such as ECE and AURC, we then construct a benchmark of self-reported confidence reliability across multiple LLMs and tasks. Our results reveal substantial variation in decision-useful confidence, and while larger and more accurate models tend to achieve higher BAS, even frontier models remain prone to severe overconfidence. Importantly, models with similar ECE or AURC can exhibit very different BAS due to highly overconfident errors, highlighting limitations of standard metrics. We further show that simple interventions, such as top-k confidence elicitation and post-hoc calibration, can meaningfully improve confidence reliability. Overall, our work provides both a principled metric and a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM confidence reliability.