Calibrated Confidence Estimation for Tabular Question Answering

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.

Confidence estimation for large language models (LLMs) aims to estimate the probability that a generated answer is correct, while calibration aligns these estimates with empirical accuracy. Prior work has shown that token probabilities are often overconfident, we investigate whether these readily available signals can nevertheless provide well-calibrated confidence estimation for mathematical question answering. We compare single-pass estimators, which reuse token probabilities from the original generation, with multi-pass estimators, which obtain additional confidence signals through verification or stochastic forward passes. While individual token probabilities can be highly saturated, we find that aggregating token probabilities over the full sequence captures small but consistent differences between correct and incorrect generations, yielding more informative confidence estimates. Multi-pass methods can yield calibrated confidence estimates. We study two such approaches: self-verification through re-prompting, including a lower-cost in-situ variant, and Monte Carlo Dropout, which derives confidence from variation across stochastic forward passes. We further evaluate two post-hoc calibration methods, Platt scaling and isotonic regression, both of which substantially reduce in-domain calibration error. However, their data efficiency varies with dataset difficulty, and the calibration mappings often transfer asymmetrically across datasets and models.

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.