Self-Anchoring Calibration Drift in Large Language Models: How Multi-Turn Conversations Reshape Model Confidence

Large language models (LLMs) tend to verbalize confidence scores that are largely detached from their actual accuracy, yet the geometric relationship governing this behavior remain poorly understood. In this work, we present a mechanistic interpretability analysis of verbalized confidence, using linear probes and contrastive activation addition (CAA) steering to show that calibration and verbalized confidence signals are encoded linearly but are orthogonal to one another -- a finding consistent across three open-weight models and four datasets. Interestingly, when models are prompted to simultaneously reason through a problem and verbalize a confidence score, the reasoning process disrupts the verbalized confidence direction, exacerbating miscalibration. We term this the "Reasoning Contamination Effect." Leveraging this insight, we introduce a two-stage adaptive steering pipeline that reads the model's internal accuracy estimate and steers verbalized output to match it, substantially improving calibration alignment across all evaluated models.

Prior work has shown that instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) are less well calibrated than their base pre-trained counterparts. However, little is known about the frequently used chat template's effect on the calibration of conversational LLMs. In this work, we investigate the mechanisms driving this miscalibration by decoupling the effects of the post-training algorithm and the chat format. We find that, while instruction tuning fundamentally harms calibration, the chat template aggravates the issue through an "ownership bias" -- models are significantly more confident in their own answers than in identical answers provided by a user. Extensive experiments across six recent open-weight LLMs, three benchmarks, and three confidence elicitation methods show that models assign up to 26% higher confidence to their own responses. Leveraging this insight, we propose a simple inference-time strategy: framing the model's answer as user input during confidence elicitation. This approach significantly reduces overconfidence and improves calibration by up to 26% without the need for retraining, narrowing the gap between base and instruction-tuned models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in high-stakes domains such as finance, healthcare, and education, where reliable multi-turn interactions with users are essential. However, existing work on confidence estimation and calibration, a major approach to building trustworthy LLM systems, largely focuses on single-turn settings and overlooks the risks and potential of multi-turn conversations. In this work, we introduce the task of multi-turn calibration to reframe calibration from a static property into a dynamic challenge central to reliable multi-turn conversation, where calibrating model confidence at each turn conditioned on the conversation history is required. We first reveal the risks of this setting: using Expected Calibration Error at turn T (ECE@T), a new metric that tracks calibration dynamics over turns, we show that user feedback (e.g., persuasion) can degrade multi-turn calibration. To address this, we propose MTCal, which minimises ECE@T via a surrogate calibration target, and further leverage calibrated confidence in ConfChat, a decoding strategy that improves both factuality and consistency of the model response in multi-turn interactions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MT-Cal achieves outstanding and consistent performance in multi-turn calibration, and ConfChat preserves and even enhances model performance in multi-turn interactions. Our results mark multi-turn calibration as one missing link for scaling LLM calibration toward safe, reliable, and real-world use.