CORDIAL: Calibrating Ordinal LLM Outputs from Few Labels

Large language models are increasingly used for ordinal classification, yet semantically equivalent changes to prompt organization can alter their predictions. We conduct systematic experiments to characterize positional bias from label order, demonstration order, and demonstration placement. First, we apply the three probes to ten frontier LLMs on a common ordinal-classification task; every model is sensitive to all three positional sources, showing that the problem is pervasive. Second, we vary eight prompt-, task-, and model-level factors across five datasets; accuracy and stability are often misaligned, and only lower scale cardinality consistently improves both. Third, we compare pointwise, pairwise, and listwise inference, alternative aggregation and debiasing methods, and joint configurations; the tested corrections do not provide a reliable remedy, while a comparison-based listwise formulation offers the best balance but transfers unevenly across models and bias sources. These findings show that positional robustness depends on the full system configuration rather than the model alone. Ordinal-classification systems should therefore be selected jointly for predictive performance and stability.

[Abridged] Using a Large Language Model (LLM) as an automatic rater (LLM-as-a-judge) is cheap but potentially biased: some judges run lenient, others strict, the middle of the scale gets compressed, and verbose answers may be over-rewarded. A common remedy is post-hoc calibration: leave the cheap judge in place and, on a modest set of paired anchors, fit a transformation from raw judge scores to an estimate of the human rating. We compare two correctors that take opposing views on how this mapping should be modeled: a parametric, small-anchor hierarchical Bayesian linear correction with per-score uncertainty, and a non-parametric Neural-ODE (FFJORD) score-transport flow. Both are run head-to-head on UltraFeedback fine-grained_score (1700 paired examples, 200 held out), with calibration split into three operational sub-questions: population-mean recovery, per-item accuracy, and distributional-shape match. The headline result is that the choice between methods is primarily a data-budget question. Both correctors close the raw $+0.71$-point mean offset to within $\pm 0.08$ of the GPT-4 reference, at 100 and at 1500 anchors. Past that, the methods swap roles. With 100 anchors, the linear corrector reconstructs the human-score distribution roughly twice as well by KL divergence (0.031 vs. 0.058) and ties the flow on MAE. With 1500 anchors the flow wins on every metric (MAE 0.320 vs. 0.359, Pearson 0.922 vs. 0.896, KL 0.026 vs. 0.037). The Bayesian linear corrector saturates well below 1500 anchors: residual $\tanh$-shaped non-linearity is, by construction, structure a linear correction cannot fit. The flow keeps improving as labels grow. We translate these findings into an explicit decision rule for production deployments.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce answers with high certainty even when they are incorrect, making reliable confidence estimation essential for deployment in real-world scenarios. Verbalized confidence, where models explicitly state their confidence in natural language, provides a flexible and user-facing uncertainty signal that can be applied even when token logits are unavailable. However, existing verbalized-confidence methods often optimize answer generation and confidence generation jointly, which can cause confidence-alignment objectives to interfere with answer accuracy. In this work, we propose a decoupled and order-aware framework for verbalized confidence calibration. Our method first generates an answer and then estimates confidence conditioned on the fixed question--answer pair, allowing confidence optimization without directly perturbing the answer-generation process. To align confidence with correctness likelihood, we construct a sampling-based surrogate from multiple model completions and optimize rank-based reinforcement learning objectives that encourage responses with higher estimated correctness likelihood to receive higher verbalized confidence. Experiments on reasoning and knowledge-intensive benchmarks show that our method improves calibration and failure prediction performance while largely preserving answer accuracy. These results demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be more reliably aligned by decoupling confidence estimation from answer generation and optimizing the relative ordering of confidence across responses.