Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations

Accurate confidence estimation is critical for reliable use of large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM calibration largely focuses on response-level confidence, which estimates the correctness of a single generated output. However, this formulation is misaligned with many practical settings where the central question is how likely a model is to solve a query overall. We show that this mismatch results from the stochastic nature of modern LLM decoding, under which single-response correctness fails to reflect underlying model capability. To address this issue, we introduce capability calibration, a new evaluation framework for measuring how well query-level confidence aligns with a model's expected accuracy on individual queries. We formally distinguish capability calibration (CC) from response calibration (RC) and show that the two differ both theoretically and empirically. We further show that CC is better suited than RC to applications like pass@k prediction and inference budget allocation. Finally, we evaluate common confidence estimation methods to understand the practical feasibility of CC.

LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence. These signals are sometimes treated as direct readouts of model uncertainty, but their comparison depends on measurement choices that are rarely made explicit. In the main analysis, we hold the verbalized-confidence elicitation fixed: a single prompt template, probability scale, and output format. We then vary the measurement axes that define the verbalized-vs-token comparison: which answer string receives the token-probability score, how that score is read from the answer tokens, and under which conditioning context it is measured. We evaluate this design on four QA benchmarks across three open 7--8B base/Instruct model families, with larger Qwen2.5 variants as same-family robustness checks. The resulting comparison is sensitive to these choices: conditioning context changes the sign or magnitude of the ECE gap across settings, token readout produces smaller but still sign-moving changes, and changing the ECE estimator has little effect. Under the default generated-answer, bare-context protocol, Instruct settings are close to parity rather than showing a large calibration gain for verbalized confidence. In a separate supplied-answer analysis, surface-plausible wrong answers receive nearly the same confidence as supplied gold answers, suggesting that verbalized confidence also reflects answer plausibility and provenance rather than correctness alone. We argue that both confidence signals should be treated as protocol-dependent behavioral measurements, and provide a reporting checklist covering elicitation provenance, scored answer, token-probability readout, and conditioning context.

Calibration measures whether a model's predicted confidence aligns with its empirical accuracy, and is central to the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs) in high-stakes domains such as medicine and law. While much recent work focuses on improving LLM calibration, the equally important question of how to evaluate it in realistic settings remains underdeveloped. Open-ended question answering (QA), the most common deployment setting for modern LLMs, is where existing evaluation methods fall short: logit-based metrics need restricted output formats and internal probabilities; verbalized confidence is self-reported and often overconfident; and sampling-based methods rely on task-specific extraction rules without a clear finite-sample target. We introduce Sem-ECE (Semantic-Sampling Expected Calibration Error), a calibration evaluation framework for open-ended QA that samples answers from the model, groups them into semantic classes, and uses the resulting frequencies as confidence. We study two estimators within this framework: Sem$_1$-ECE, the same-sample self-consistency score, and Sem$_2$-ECE, a held-out variant that separates answer selection from confidence evaluation. We prove both are asymptotically unbiased, and further show that they agree on easy questions but diverge on hard ones with Sem$_2$ achieving strictly smaller calibration error, so their gap also serves as a diagnostic for question difficulty. Experiments on three open-ended QA benchmarks across five leading commercial LLMs match our theoretical predictions and show that Sem-ECE outperforms verbalized confidence and existing sampling-based methods, while complementing logit-based evaluation when internal probabilities are unavailable.