arXiv preprint ·
When Confidence Signals Disagree: Local and Global Confidence in Autoregressive Language Models
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Modern predictive systems expose multiple quantities that are commonly interpreted as measures of confidence. However, these quantities can summarize different aspects of the predictive process. This distinction matters when confidence is used to evaluate reliability or inform downstream oversight and control. We investigate whether different confidence readouts are empirically interchangeable in an autoregressive language model by comparing local confidence, defined from the probability of the greedy-selected answer token, with global confidence, defined from modal-answer frequency under repeated sampling. Across MMLU and ARC Challenge, the two signals are weakly correlated and differ substantially in their association with correctness: global confidence is moderately associated with correctness, whereas local confidence shows little association. We further test whether question-level disagreement between the signals is associated with sampling instability. On ARC, larger local--global confidence gaps are associated with higher answer entropy, more distinct sampled answers, and lower modal-answer concentration. The gap--entropy association persists when disagreement and instability are estimated from disjoint stochastic samples, indicating that it is not explained by shared finite-sample variation. The corresponding relationship is substantially weaker on MMLU, where only 4% of questions exhibit sampling instability. These results show that confidence readouts derived from the same predictive system are not empirically interchangeable and that their disagreement can provide a diagnostic of unstable sampling behavior. Confidence should therefore be treated as an explicitly defined measurement rather than as a single intrinsic scalar property of a model, particularly when it is used to inform downstream evaluation, oversight, or control.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Early-Bird Decoding: Accelerating Diffusion LLMs with Learnable Block Sizes and Parallel Sampling
EDCT-Bench: Uncovering Faithfulness Gaps in VLMs via Explanation-Driven Counterfactual Testing
Fine-Tuning Fixes Mode Collapse and Over-Dispersion in LLMs
Measuring AI Leadership: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure for AI-Native Organizations
OPD-Aha: From Linguistic Momentum to Visual Reflection in Multimodal On-Policy Distillation
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.