Confidence calibration in large language models (LLMs) is commonly evaluated by comparing predicted confidence with observed accuracy. However, such approaches do not model item difficulty, making it difficult to interpret discrepancies and to determine whether model confidence reflects genuine self-assessment or is merely a byproduct of the response generation process. To address this, we adopt a Rasch model-based latent ability framework and a metacognitive perspective, and propose Latent Confidence Alignment Error (LCAE) to measure the consistency between model self-assessment and the latent error probability implied by model ability and item difficulty. We further incorporate item difficulty as an external signal with a reasoning mechanism. Experiments on a medical-domain dataset with 20 models show that the proposed approach improves self-assessment quality without affecting model ability, and reveals an association between reliability and inference cost.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in settings where reliable self-assessment is critical. Assessing model reliability has evolved from using probabilistic correctness estimates to, more recently, eliciting verbalized confidence. Confidence, however, has been shown to be an inconsistent and overoptimistic predictor of model correctness. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory, a framework from human psychology that decomposes self-evaluation into multiple components, we propose a multidimensional perspective on model self-assessment. We elicit six appraisal-based dimensions of self-assessment, alongside confidence, and evaluate their utility for predicting model failure across 12 LLMs and 38 tasks spanning eight domains. We find that competence-related appraisal dimensions, particularly effort and ability, consistently match or outperform confidence across most settings. Effort additionally yields less overoptimistic estimates that remain stable across model sizes. In contrast, affective dimensions provide marginally predictive signals. Furthermore, the most informative dimension varies systematically with task characteristics: effort is most predictive for reasoning-intensive tasks, while ability and confidence dominate on retrieval-oriented tasks. Broadly, our findings indicate that structured multidimensional self-assessment is a promising approach to improving the reliability and safety of language model deployment across diverse real-world settings.
Confidence-weighted routing, selective abstention, and ensemble weighting all assume that a model's stated confidence is informative about its capability on the question being asked. They presume functional metacognition, the capacity to assess one's own capabilities, without exercising them. Aggregate calibration is well studied, with mixed results, but the underlying structure of elicited confidence is less well understood. We decompose binary confidence judgements from 20 frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) across six benchmarks using tetrachoric factor analysis paired with pairwise calibration, asking whether two models that differ in confidence also differ in performance. On factual recall and information retrieval benchmarks the cross-model confidence matrix is approximately rank-one and a single dominant factor captures most of the latent variance. Models retrieving facts share an item-level difficulty axis and differ mainly in their decision thresholds along it. Across all benchmarks the relationship between confidence and performance collapses once items that all models agree on are removed. Inter-model pairwise calibration is small even where statistically significant, and what remains shrinks to nothing once base-rate differences along the shared factor are controlled for. Mathematical reasoning is the apparent exception, but this turns out to be a confound where reasoning models answer questions about their confidence by trying to solve them in their chain of thought, bypassing the sub-symbolic self-knowledge we seek to measure. We find no evidence for significant verbalised individuated metacognition in any tested domain.
Large language models can report a numerical confidence together with generated content, but it is unclear whether this report is more than calibrated rhetoric. We analyze three training-free signals: confidence verbalized with the answer, post-hoc P(True), and agreement with three additional generations on the same 100 TriviaQA questions for two model families. Direct verbalization is a surprisingly strong baseline: after auditing benchmark errors, it reaches AUROC 0.956 and 0.937 for correctness prediction. Three-sample agreement is substantially weaker (0.765 and 0.790), and a fixed interpolation with verbalized confidence has no statistically reliable benefit. Four of nine errors from one model and two of eight from the other receive unanimous sample support, showing that self-consistency can amplify shared misconceptions. Re-eliciting confidence for the same fixed answers with equivalent prompts changes scores by 0.043 to 0.084 on average and flips 4% to 9% of decisions at a 0.8 threshold. An exploratory audit of 100 confidence-tagged biography claims further finds only a modest confidence gap between supported and contradicted claims. These results argue that useful self-reports remain sensitive to elicitation, correlated errors, and benchmark noise.