arXiv preprint ·
Beyond Calibration: Do a Typed-Decision Model's Probabilities Obey the Probability Axioms?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Typed-decision models such as TypeSafe's Jev answer a declared yes/no or multiple-choice question about a state with a probability instead of text, and their evaluations report accuracy and calibration. Neither requires that the probabilities a model gives to logically related questions fit together item by item, which is what a system that acts on those probabilities needs. We test this property, coherence, with a battery of logically linked questions that needs no labels. For 160 items from ChaosNLI and PubMedQA, each with three mutually exclusive labels, we ask whether the label is X, whether it is not X, whether it is one of the other two labels, and which label applies. On 480 negation pairs, Jev's probabilities for "the label is X" and "the label is not X" miss summing to one by 0.064 on average (95% CI 0.055 to 0.072). Qwen3.8-27B, run from its official BF16 weights, misses by 0.293 with first-token probabilities and by 0.122 with verbalized probabilities. The gap to the first-token readout persists on pairs where both systems give similar probabilities, without double-negation labels, and after averaging Jev's repeated calls. Jev is not coherent either: its violations are about five times its repeat noise, and it over-endorses statements about single labels, so that its three single-label probabilities sum to 1.14 on average. The two systems also fail differently. Qwen3.8-27B's first-token readout under-endorses the complement of a label whether or not the question contains "not", rejecting both a statement and its negation in 196 of 480 pairs, and it does not become more coherent where it is more confident, whereas Jev's violations concentrate where its answer is uncertain. Because the checks need no labels, they expose biases that appear only when question forms are compared, and inconsistencies within items.
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 Computation & Language / NLP
Improving the Diversity of LLM Outputs without a Trade-off
Steering Language Model Goals with Value Transplant
Pinned and Still Unstable: Within-Judge Verdict Variance and the Noise Floor of LLM-as-Judge Leaderboards
Counterexamples to Local Reconstruction Gain as a Proxy for Final Fidelity in Residual Completion
Reading Too Much into Context: Passive Exposure Can Steer LLM Decisions
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP 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.