Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Making LLMs Say What They Know: Probe-Targeted Fine-Tuning for Verbal Confidence Calibration

Authors: Cacioli, Jon-Paul;

Making LLMs Say What They Know: Probe-Targeted Fine-Tuning for Verbal Confidence Calibration

Abstract

Background: Verbal confidence in instruct-tuned large language models fails because the readout pathway from internal correctness representations to the confidence-token position transmits little of the available signal. Linear probes on hidden states discriminate correct from incorrect responses at AUROC2 = 0.76–0.88 across seven of eight models spanning four families and three scales (the exception, Qwen 72B, is a probe outlier), yet verbal confidence saturates near ceiling (mean ~95–99%). Objectives: We introduce probe-targeted confidence-calibrated supervised fine-tuning (PT-CSFT), which uses a linear probe on a model's own hidden states to generate continuous confidence targets for LoRA fine-tuning. We evaluate whether this method closes the metacognitive gap across model families, scales, and cognitive domains. Methods: PT-CSFT modifies attention key and output projections and the three MLP projections via LoRA while leaving queries, values, and the language model head unchanged. We evaluate on eight models (7B–72B, four families) across TriviaQA, GSM8K, and ARC-Challenge. A two-stage curriculum addresses the 70B regime. The logit readout reads softmax distributions over confidence tokens as a continuous signal. Pre-registration: OSF Phase 1 (https://osf.io/ngkwc/), Phase 0 (https://osf.io/mpcr5). Results: PT-CSFT recovers 91–115% of probe discrimination in verbal confidence at 7–32B. At 70B, a two-stage curriculum closes 66% of the gap on the logit channel (AUROC2 = 0.797), the first VRS-Valid confidence signal at 70B. On GSM8K, the logit readout achieves AUROC2 = 0.862 ± 0.013 across 10 seeds, exceeding the probe. Post-hoc Platt scaling yields ECE = 0.042. The signal transfers out-of-distribution (NQ: 0.757, PopQA: 0.834) and enables confidence-gated retrieval (2.17x accuracy differential). Conclusions: Controlled activation patching at the confidence-token position supports the interpretation that verbal confidence failure is a routing problem. The intervention is position-specific (mid-question control: chance), bidirectional (91% forward, 89% reverse), selective (83% of answers unchanged), and follows a near-monotonic layer-depth gradient (Spearman rho = 0.976, p < 1e-4). These observations are consistent with PT-CSFT repairing a position-specific pathway for confidence without disrupting answer computation, though they do not trace the effect to specific model components. Multi-seed replication across three model families confirms stability (Llama 8B: 0.836 ± 0.011; Qwen 7B: 0.801 ± 0.022; Mistral 7B: 0.771 ± 0.017; 6 seeds each). The logit readout universally rescues where text confidence fails.

Keywords

activation patching, mechanistic interpretability, LoRA fine-tuning, verbal confidence, large language models, metacognition, LLM calibration, signal detection theory

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green