Different Facets of Verbalised Overconfidence: an Interpretability Study

What they did

1. Using controlled story-based questions where the correct answer is either logically certain (necessity) or only possibly true (possibility), researchers tested how well Qwen3-4B signals uncertainty across three formats: verbal hedges, abstention ('I don't know'), and numeric confidence scores.
2. The model was always confident in certain scenarios, but wrongly stayed confident in uncertain scenarios 14% of the time with verbal hedges, 27% with abstention, and a striking 80% of the time when asked for a numeric score, almost always defaulting to the top score of 5.
3. Using interpretability tools (circuit-tracer and transcoder features) that trace which internal components drive the model's output, the researchers found an asymmetry: confident answers are produced by a wide, shared coalition of features, while uncertain answers depend on a small, dedicated group of features that must actively override the default.
4. Artificially boosting these 20 key uncertainty features by 2.5x or more corrected about 94% of the model's overconfident errors in the verbal setting. The same boost also raised abstention accuracy from 72.7% to 82.7%, and produced similar gains when tested on Chinese and Italian translations, suggesting these features encode uncertainty abstractly rather than being tied to specific English words.
5. The numeric confidence score setting barely improved with this intervention, because the model's probability mass was already saturated near the top score of 5, indicating numeric confidence scores are structurally the least reliable way to elicit honest uncertainty from this model.

Why it matters

In high-stakes areas like medicine or intelligence analysis, knowing whether an AI is genuinely confident or just sounding confident matters a great deal. This work explains overconfidence at the level of the model's internal circuitry and shows it can be directly corrected, offering a concrete path toward building more trustworthy AI systems.

Terms in this paper

• overconfidence · giving assertive, confident-sounding answers even when the evidence only supports hedging or uncertainty
• abstention · responding with 'I don't know' instead of committing to an answer
• transcoder feature · an interpretable internal component that interpretability tools use to decompose a model's computations
• circuit · the internal pathway of connected features that together produce a specific behavior, like expressing certainty or uncertainty
• necessity/possibility · logical scenarios where an answer is either the only one possible (necessity) or just one of several possible options (possibility)

Figures we cannot republish

• Figure 1: Qwen3-4B overconfidence in the three settings. Left: accuracy in the certainty and uncertainty scenarios. Right: distribution of the probability on the uncertainty-side response per scenario: in the verbal confidence setting is the summed mass for the observed epistemic tokens P​(might,could), in the abstention is the abstention rate, in the numeric confidence is P​(score<5). The diamond marks the mean.
• Figure 2: Error intervention on the top-20 uncertainty features for errors (uncertainty scenarios with certainty outputs). Left: graded effect of the boost multiplier on the error samples; P​(assertive) decays while P​(epistemic) and the rescued correct rate rise, reaching ≈94% from ×2.5 on. Right: per-setting accuracy under the ×3 boost.
• Figure 3: Generalization to the modality task. Change in the number of responses per certainty label under the prototype-value boost: from the baseline (×1) to ×5.
• Figure 4: Accuracy by template and condition for the verbal setting.
• Figure 5: Decomposition of each attribution pool’s total |mean​_​act| by DFA tag. Errors under-use the possibility-specific coalition (16.9% vs. 30.2% in the possibility prototype) and over-use necessity-specific features; enumeration looks like a properly-fired possibility pass.
• Figure 6: Ablation on correct samples. Progressively suppressing the top-20 possibility-specific features zeroes out possibility accuracy, whereas the symmetric suppression of the top-20 necessity-specific features leaves necessity accuracy at 100%. Random-feature baselines (dotted) are flat in both conditions.
• Figure 7: Cross-lingual transfer of the ×3 uncertainty-feature boost, on errors only (following Section 3.3).
• Figure 8: Prototypical circuits for certainty (left) and uncertainty (right) in Qwen3-4B, under a backward-from-logit node selection. Columns are the Constraints / Question / Answer zones; rows are model layers. Nodes are colored by statistical tag (shared, necessity-specific, possibility-specific) and sized by |mean​_​inf|; solid and dashed edges go to the assertive and epistemic logit targets respectively, colored by sign. Certainty is carried by a broad distribution of features across layers 22–29, whereas uncertainty concentrates on a sparse set of strongly activated possibility-specific features in the same band.

Latest papers

• SWE-bench Science: Can Coding Agents Resolve Engineering Tasks in Science?AI coding agents were tested on fixing real scientific software, and even the best one failed more than half the timearXiv:2608.197992026-08-21
• FlashPrefill V2: Block-Sparse Prefill Attention for Long-Context LLM ServingMaking sparse attention fast enough and accurate enough for real LLM serving, not just papersarXiv:2608.197582026-08-21
• PolicyGuide: From Guarding One Action to Guiding the Whole Workflow for Policy-Compliant LLM AgentsMaking customer-service AI agents follow the whole procedure, not just avoid one bad actionarXiv:2608.198612026-08-21
• EXIMO: VLM Guided Exploration of VLA PoliciesTeaching a robot new chores without human teleoperation, by letting a chatty AI supervise itarXiv:2608.198912026-08-21
• EnvHarness: Awakening Static Worlds for Agent LearningInstead of building new training worlds from scratch, this work adds a plug-in layer that reshapes existing ones around each agent's actual weaknessesarXiv:2608.198802026-08-21
• Bounded Sovereignty and the Control Tax: Pricing AI Oversight When the Deployer Does Not Own the ModelCompanies that rent AI instead of owning it can only do half of AI safety oversightarXiv:2608.192162026-08-21
• Beyond Imitation: Filtering On-Policy Distillation by Reasoning ProgressA fix for AI models that get penalized by their teacher even when they're reasoning correctlyarXiv:2608.194082026-08-21
• PersonalBench: Measuring the Authorship Gap in LLM PersonalizationAI can be prompted to write 'like someone,' but its own voice never fully disappearsarXiv:2608.197462026-08-21

Latest from METAL MEDIA

• TUIDE debut with 'SUN KISS,' an Iceland-shot K-pop road movie
• NCT 127 drop BLINGY, their first full album in two years