Rethinking Verbalized Confidence for LLM-as-a-Judge: A Compatibility Shift on Post-2025 Proprietary Models

LLM-as-Judge systems are widely deployed for automated evaluation, yet practitioners lack reliable methods to know when a judge's verdict should be trusted. Token log-probabilities, the standard post-hoc confidence signal, are unavailable for many commercial LLMs and, even when accessible, saturate above 0.999 with structured JSON output. We introduce VERDI (VERification-Decomposed Inference), a method that extracts confidence from the reasoning trace a structured judge already produces, with no additional inference calls. VERDI decomposes each verification-style evaluation into sub-checks and derives three structural signals: Step-Verdict Alignment, Claim-Level Margin, and Evidence Grounding Score. We combine them with Platt-scaled logistic regression. On three public benchmarks, VERDI achieves AUROC 0.72-0.91 on GPT-4.1-mini and 0.66-0.80 on GPT-5.4-mini. On Qwen3.5-4B/9B/27B, where answer-token logprobs are anti-calibrated (higher confidence on errors, AUROC 0.32-0.49), VERDI achieves 0.56-0.70. We additionally validate on a production system with eight rubrics (AUROC 0.73-0.88 on factual rubrics), demonstrate cross-model transfer (AUROC 0.66-0.69), and show that a 33M-parameter NLI (Natural Language Inference) model provides a scalable alternative to regex extraction.

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.

Verbalized confidence, in which LLMs report a numerical certainty score, is widely used to estimate uncertainty in black-box settings, yet the confidence scale itself (typically 0--100) is rarely examined. We show that this design choice is not neutral. Across six LLMs and three datasets, verbalized confidence is heavily discretized, with more than 78% of responses concentrating on just three round-number values. To investigate this phenomenon, we systematically manipulate confidence scales along three dimensions: granularity, boundary placement, and range regularity, and evaluate metacognitive sensitivity using $meta\text{-}d'$. We find that a 0--20 scale consistently improves metacognitive efficiency over the standard 0--100 format, while boundary compression degrades performance and round-number preferences persist even under irregular ranges. These results demonstrate that confidence scale design directly affects the quality of verbalized uncertainty and should be treated as a first-class experimental variable in LLM evaluation.