Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive performance across diverse domains but often suffer from overconfidence, limiting their reliability in critical applications. We propose SteerConf, a novel framework that systematically steers LLMs' confidence scores to improve their calibration and reliability. SteerConf introduces three key components: (1) a steering prompt strategy that guides LLMs to produce confidence scores in specified directions (e.g., conservative or optimistic) by leveraging prompts with varying steering levels; (2) a steered confidence consistency measure that quantifies alignment across multiple steered confidences to enhance calibration; and (3) a steered confidence calibration method that aggregates confidence scores using consistency measures and applies linear quantization for answer selection. SteerConf operates without additional training or fine-tuning, making it broadly applicable to existing LLMs. Experiments on seven benchmarks spanning professional knowledge, common sense, ethics, and reasoning tasks, using advanced LLM models (GPT-3.5, LLaMA 3, GPT-4), demonstrate that SteerConf significantly outperforms existing methods, often by a significant margin. Our findings highlight the potential of steering the confidence of LLMs to enhance their reliability for safer deployment in real-world applications.

Confidence calibration for classification models is vital in safety-critical decision-making scenarios and has received extensive attention. General confidence calibration methods assume training and test data are independent and identically distributed, limiting their effectiveness under covariate shifts. Previous calibration methods under covariate shift struggle with class-wise or canonical calibrations and often rely on unstable importance weighting when density ratios are large or unbounded. Given the above limitations, this paper rethinks confidence calibration under covariate shifts. First, we derive a necessary and sufficient condition for confidence calibration under covariate shifts, named Expectation consistency condition, which reveals covariate shifts do not necessarily lead to uncalibrated confidence and provides a weaker condition for confidence calibration than global covariate distribution alignment. Then, utilizing Expectation consistency condition, this paper proposes an unsupervised domain adaptation loss to calibrate confidence of the target domain, named Expectation consistency loss (ECL), which is compatible with canonical calibration, class-wise calibration, and top-label calibration. Third, we prove that computing ECL loss has the same sample complexity as Expected Calibration Error (ECE) and provide a theoretically grounded mini-batch trainable scheme for ECL loss. Finally, we validate the effectiveness of our method on both simulated and real-world covariate shift datasets.

When such components are expected to be embedded in safety-critical systems (e.g.,

Despite Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved remarkable accuracy, whether the results are trustworthy is still unexplored. Previous studies suggest that many modern neural networks are over-confident on the predictions, however, surprisingly, we discover that GNNs are primarily in the opposite direction, i.e., GNNs are under-confident. Therefore, the confidence calibration for GNNs is highly desired. In this paper, we propose a novel trustworthy GNN model by designing a topology-aware post-hoc calibration function. Specifically, we first verify that the confidence distribution in a graph has homophily property, and this finding inspires us to design a calibration GNN model (CaGCN) to learn the calibration function. CaGCN is able to obtain a unique transformation from logits of GNNs to the calibrated confidence for each node, meanwhile, such transformation is able to preserve the order between classes, satisfying the accuracy-preserving property. Moreover, we apply the calibration GNN to self-training framework, showing that more trustworthy pseudo labels can be obtained with the calibrated confidence and further improve the performance. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed model in terms of both calibration and accuracy.

This project develops a self correcting framework for large language models (LLMs) that detects and mitigates hallucinations during multi-step reasoning. Rather than relying solely on final answer correctness, our approach leverages fine grained uncertainty signals: 1) self-assessed confidence alignment, and 2) token-level entropy spikes to detect unreliable and unfaithful reasoning in real time. We design a composite reward function that penalizes unjustified high confidence and entropy spikes, while encouraging stable and accurate reasoning trajectories. These signals guide a reinforcement learning (RL) policy that makes the model more introspective and shapes the model's generation behavior through confidence-aware reward feedback, improving not just outcome correctness but the coherence and faithfulness of their intermediate reasoning steps. Experiments show that our method improves both final answer accuracy and reasoning calibration, with ablations validating the individual contribution of each signal.

Vision-language models (VLMs) often produce chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations that sound plausible yet fail to reflect the underlying decision process, undermining trust in high-stakes clinical use. Existing evaluations rarely catch this misalignment, prioritizing answer accuracy or adherence to formats. We present a clinically grounded framework for chest X-ray visual question answering (VQA) that probes CoT faithfulness via controlled text and image modifications across three axes: clinical fidelity, causal attribution, and confidence calibration. In a reader study (n=4), evaluator-radiologist correlations fall within the observed inter-radiologist range for all axes, with strong alignment for attribution (Kendall's $τ_b=0.670$), moderate alignment for fidelity ($τ_b=0.387$), and weak alignment for confidence tone ($τ_b=0.091$), which we report with caution. Benchmarking six VLMs shows that answer accuracy and explanation quality can be decoupled, acknowledging injected cues does not ensure grounding, and text cues shift explanations more than visual cues. While some open-source models match final answer accuracy, proprietary models score higher on attribution (25.0% vs. 1.4%) and often on fidelity (36.1% vs. 31.7%), highlighting deployment risks and the need to evaluate beyond final answer accuracy.

Accurate confidence calibration in Large Language Models (LLMs) is critical for safe use in high-stakes domains, where clear verbalized confidence enhances user trust. Traditional methods that mimic reference confidence expressions often fail to capture the reasoning needed for accurate confidence assessment. We propose natural language critiques as a solution, ideally suited for confidence calibration, as precise gold confidence labels are hard to obtain and often require multiple generations. This paper studies how natural language critiques can enhance verbalized confidence, addressing: (1) What to critique: uncertainty (question-focused) or confidence (answer-specific)? Analysis shows confidence suits multiple-choice tasks, while uncertainty excels in open-ended scenarios. (2) How to critique: self-critique or critique calibration training? We propose Self-Critique, enabling LLMs to critique and optimize their confidence beyond mere accuracy, and CritiCal, a novel Critique Calibration training method that leverages natural language critiques to improve confidence calibration, moving beyond direct numerical optimization. Experiments show that CritiCal significantly outperforms Self-Critique and other competitive baselines, even surpassing its teacher model, GPT-4o, in complex reasoning tasks. CritiCal also shows robust generalization in out-of-distribution settings, advancing LLM's reliability.

This research aims to explore the intersection of Large Language Models and confidence calibration in Entity Matching. To this end, we perform an empirical study to compare baseline RoBERTa confidences for an Entity Matching task against confidences that are calibrated using Temperature Scaling, Monte Carlo Dropout and Ensembles. We use the Abt-Buy, DBLP-ACM, iTunes-Amazon and Company datasets. The findings indicate that the proposed modified RoBERTa model exhibits a slight overconfidence, with Expected Calibration Error scores ranging from 0.0043 to 0.0552 across datasets. We find that this overconfidence can be mitigated using Temperature Scaling, reducing Expected Calibration Error scores by up to 23.83%.