Papers › Probabilities of Chat LLMs Are Miscalibrated but Still Predict Correctness on...

Probabilities of Chat LLMs Are Miscalibrated but Still Predict Correctness on Multiple-Choice Q&A

20 Feb 2024arXiv:2402.13213archive 2025-07-28

Benjamin Plaut, Nguyen X. Khanh, Tu Trinh

We study 14 large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned for chat and find that their maximum softmax probabilities (MSPs) are consistently miscalibrated on multiple-choice Q&A. However, those MSPs might still encode useful uncertainty information. Specifically, we hypothesized that wrong answers would be associated with smaller MSPs compared to correct answers. Via rigororous statistical testing, we show that this hypothesis holds for models which perform well on the underlying Q&A task. We also find a strong direction correlation between Q&A accuracy and MSP correctness prediction, while finding no correlation between Q&A accuracy and calibration error. This suggests that within the current fine-tuning paradigm, we can expect correctness prediction but not calibration to improve as LLM capabilities progress. To demonstrate the utility of correctness prediction, we show that when models have the option to abstain, performance can be improved by selectively abstaining based on the MSP of the initial model response, using only a small amount of labeled data to choose the MSP threshold.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

14 samples harvested; 10 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 14 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections