Hexiang Tan

Hexiang Tan, Wanli Yang, Junwei Zhang et al.

Reliable confidence is essential for trusting the outputs of LLMs, yet widely deployed post-trained LLMs (PoLLMs) typically compromise this trust with severe overconfidence. In contrast, we observe that their corresponding base LLMs often remain well-calibrated. This naturally motivates us to calibrate PoLLM confidence using the base LLM as a reference. This work proposes two ways to achieve this. A straightforward solution, BaseCal-ReEval, evaluates PoLLM's responses by feeding them into the base LLM to get average probabilities as confidence. While effective, this approach introduces additional inference overhead. To address this, we propose BaseCal-Proj, which trains a lightweight projection to map the final-layer hidden states of PoLLMs back to those of their base LLMs. These projected states are then processed by the base LLM's output layer to derive base-calibrated confidence for PoLLM's responses. Notably, BaseCal is an unsupervised, plug-and-play solution that operates without human labels or LLM modifications. Experiments across five datasets and three LLM families demonstrate the effectiveness of BaseCal, reducing Expected Calibration Error (ECE) by an average of 42.90\% compared to the best unsupervised baselines.

Jiawei Gu, Xuhui Jiang, Zhichao Shi et al.

Accurate and consistent evaluation is crucial for decision-making across numerous fields, yet it remains a challenging task due to inherent subjectivity, variability, and scale. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, leading to the emergence of "LLM-as-a-Judge," where LLMs are employed as evaluators for complex tasks. With their ability to process diverse data types and provide scalable, cost-effective, and consistent assessments, LLMs present a compelling alternative to traditional expert-driven evaluations. However, ensuring the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems remains a significant challenge that requires careful design and standardization. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of LLM-as-a-Judge, addressing the core question: How can reliable LLM-as-a-Judge systems be built? We explore strategies to enhance reliability, including improving consistency, mitigating biases, and adapting to diverse assessment scenarios. Additionally, we propose methodologies for evaluating the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, supported by a novel benchmark designed for this purpose. To advance the development and real-world deployment of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, we also discussed practical applications, challenges, and future directions. This survey serves as a foundational reference for researchers and practitioners in this rapidly evolving field.

Chenyu Lin, Yilin Wen, Du Su et al.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves performance on knowledge-intensive tasks but can be derailed by wrong, irrelevant, or conflicting retrieved text, causing models to rely on inaccurate evidence and cascade errors. We propose Knowledgeable-R1, a reinforcement-learning framework that explicitly trains large language models to use parametric knowledge (PK) to resist contextual interference while still exploiting external context when it is reliably helpful. Knowledgeable-R1 introduces a joint sampling scheme that generates paired responses with and without retrieval, and learns both local advantages (within each decoding regime) and global advantages under the same input to quantify when to ignore misleading context versus adopt it. We employ an asymmetric advantage transformation that amplifies exploratory behaviors toward parametric knowledge. Experiments show that \method significantly improves robustness and reasoning accuracy in knowledge conflict scenarios and general RAG scenarios, outperforming SOTA baselines by 23% in counterfactual scenarios, and without degradation when the retrieved context is fully accurate.Our code are available at https://github.com/lcy80366872/knowledgeable-R1.

Hexiang Tan, Fei Sun, Wanli Yang et al.

While auxiliary information has become a key to enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs), relatively little is known about how LLMs merge these contexts, specifically contexts generated by LLMs and those retrieved from external sources. To investigate this, we formulate a systematic framework to identify whether LLMs' responses are attributed to either generated or retrieved contexts. To easily trace the origin of the response, we construct datasets with conflicting contexts, i.e., each question is paired with both generated and retrieved contexts, yet only one of them contains the correct answer. Our experiments reveal a significant bias in several LLMs (GPT-4/3.5 and Llama2) to favor generated contexts, even when they provide incorrect information. We further identify two key factors contributing to this bias: i) contexts generated by LLMs typically show greater similarity to the questions, increasing their likelihood of being selected; ii) the segmentation process used in retrieved contexts disrupts their completeness, thereby hindering their full utilization in LLMs. Our analysis enhances the understanding of how LLMs merge diverse contexts, offers valuable insights for advancing current LLM augmentation methods, and highlights the risk of generated misinformation for retrieval-augmented LLMs.

Yige Yuan, Bingbing Xu, Hexiang Tan et al.

Confidence calibration in LLMs, i.e., aligning their self-assessed confidence with the actual accuracy of their responses, enabling them to self-evaluate the correctness of their outputs. However, current calibration methods for LLMs typically estimate two scalars to represent overall response confidence and correctness, which is inadequate for long-form generation where the response includes multiple atomic facts and may be partially confident and correct. These methods also overlook the relevance of each fact to the query. To address these challenges, we propose a Fact-Level Calibration framework that operates at a finer granularity, calibrating confidence to relevance-weighted correctness at the fact level. Furthermore, comprehensive analysis under the framework inspired the development of Confidence-Guided Fact-level Self-Correction ($\textbf{ConFix}$), which uses high-confidence facts within a response as additional knowledge to improve low-confidence ones. Extensive experiments across four datasets and six models demonstrate that ConFix effectively mitigates hallucinations without requiring external knowledge sources such as retrieval systems.

Hexiang Tan, Fei Sun, Sha Liu et al.

As large language models (LLMs) often generate plausible but incorrect content, error detection has become increasingly critical to ensure truthfulness. However, existing detection methods often overlook a critical problem we term as self-consistent error, where LLMs repeatedly generate the same incorrect response across multiple stochastic samples. This work formally defines self-consistent errors and evaluates mainstream detection methods on them. Our investigation reveals two key findings: (1) Unlike inconsistent errors, whose frequency diminishes significantly as the LLM scale increases, the frequency of self-consistent errors remains stable or even increases. (2) All four types of detection methods significantly struggle to detect self-consistent errors. These findings reveal critical limitations in current detection methods and underscore the need for improvement. Motivated by the observation that self-consistent errors often differ across LLMs, we propose a simple but effective cross-model probe method that fuses hidden state evidence from an external verifier LLM. Our method significantly enhances performance on self-consistent errors across three LLM families.