Abstract
Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.
Explore similar work
May 29, 2026cs.CL
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where user tone ranges from polite to adversarial or toxic, yet less is known about whether toxic language in otherwise semantically equivalent prompts can degrade factual reliability. We study how lexical and tone-based prompt perturbations affect the factual reliability of LLMs. Using controlled prompt variations across polite, random, and three toxicity levels, we evaluate five LLMs on ARC-Easy, GSM8K, and MMLU. We find that toxic lexical perturbations consistently reduce factual accuracy and increase uncertainty, while polite phrasing yields limited and inconsistent changes. To examine whether these answer inconsistencies correspond to internal changes, we conduct attribution-graph analyses of model activations and influences. We find that increasing toxicity selectively amplifies perturbation-sensitive variant nodes while relatively stable core reasoning nodes remain more invariant. These findings position prompt tone as a critical dimension of LLM reliability and provide behavioral and mechanistic evidence that surface-level lexical variation can alter factual outputs and internal computation.
Soorya Ram Shimgekar, Agam Goyal, Amruta Parulekar +6
Aug 5, 2026cs.CL
Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings, where the key deployment question is not only what a model answers but when it should defer to a human. We study whether verbalized confidence can support risk-controlled deferral, evaluating eleven instruction-tuned models from three families, 0.5B to 14B parameters, on ARC-Challenge and TruthfulQA with 25,168 local predictions. Three theoretical results delimit what calibration can provide: strictly monotone calibration preserves the risk-coverage frontier and error-detection AUROC; temperature scaling cannot calibrate models whose confidence stays above one half while accuracy falls below it; and a Clopper-Pearson procedure converts a 200-question calibration set into a finite-sample risk certificate under an i.i.d. deployment assumption. Empirically, eight of 22 model-task pairs hit the temperature-scaling infeasibility floor within one percentage point of the predicted bound. Platt scaling reduces ECE to as low as 0.02, yet certified autonomy at a 20% risk budget is granted to only three model-task pairs and to none at 10%. We also identify and repair an answer-ordering artifact in the multiple-choice form of TruthfulQA. Calibration gives confidence semantics; certified deferral determines when small models are safe to use.
Jianru Shen
Sep 22, 2026cs.CL
Calibration of language models -- the alignment between expressed or implicit confidence and empirical correctness -- is a well-studied subfield within NLP. Methods to measure it already exist. The problem is adoption: outside this subfield, NLP research regularly introduces new models, datasets, and benchmarks without checking whether the model's confidence scores are meaningful. We argue that this adoption gap is a major obstacle to trustworthy LLM evaluation. Miscalibration causes problems in two distinct areas: at deployment, where overconfident mistakes cause real harm, and inside the research pipeline, where methods like LLM-as-a-judge, synthetic data generation, and active learning rely on calibrated confidence without verifying it. Standard calibration metrics only require two inputs per example: a confidence score and a correctness judgment. Most benchmarks in use today already provide both, meaning calibration can be reported immediately. For open-ended generation, however, defining these two inputs is still an open challenge. We argue that each NLP subfield should pair its main performance metric with a calibration score and call for treating calibration as an essential property of every model rather than a niche topic.
Mario Sanz-Guerrero, Katharina von der Wense