K-文化的一切——从回归到 K-美妆，发送到您的邮箱订阅邮件

METAL MEDIA

Different Facets of Verbalised Overconfidence: an Interpretability Study

arXiv:2608.181062026-08-20

研究者拆解了AI模型内部电路,揭示它为何在没有把握时依然显得斩钉截铁

这项研究考察了名为Qwen3-4B的语言模型,分析它通过三种方式表达不确定性的表现:使用可能/也许这类词语、直接说不知道、以及给出1到5分的把握度评分。研究发现,模型内部存在一套广泛共享的默认机制倾向于表达确定,而表达不确定则依赖一小撮专门的特征去覆盖这个默认机制。人为增强这些不确定特征后,大部分本应表达不确定却错误地显得很确定的回答都被纠正了。

METAL MEDIA 解读图

研究者拆解了AI模型内部电路,揭示它为何在没有把握时依然显得斩钉截铁

  1. 01研究者用受控的故事题目区分逻辑上答案必然确定(必然性)和只是可能成立(可能性)的场景,测试Qwen3-4B在三种设置下表达不确定的准确度:口头措辞式的模糊表达、直接说不知道、以及数字把握度评分。
  2. 02在确定场景中模型总能准确表达确定,但在不确定场景中,模型错误地表现出确定的比例分别为:口头表达设置14%,拒绝回答设置27%,数字评分设置高达80%,几乎总是给出满分5分。
  3. 03研究者借助可解释性工具(circuit-tracer与transcoder特征分析)追踪模型内部驱动输出的具体成分,发现一种不对称结构:表达确定依赖大量共享特征组成的广泛联盟,而表达不确定则依赖一小组专门特征主动覆盖默认状态。
  4. 04把这20个关键的不确定特征人为放大2.5倍以上后,原本错误显得确定的回答中约94%被纠正为恰当的不确定表达。同样的放大操作也让拒绝回答设置的准确率从72.7%提升到82.7%,在中文和意大利语翻译的题目上也观察到类似效果,说明这些特征编码的是抽象的不确定信号,而非仅针对英语词汇。
  5. 05但在数字评分设置中,同样的干预几乎没有效果,因为模型给出满分5分的概率已经接近饱和,这表明用数字打分让模型表达把握度是最不可靠的方式。
这是 METAL MEDIA 制作的解读图，并非论文作者提供的原图。

他们做了什么

  1. 研究者用受控的故事题目区分逻辑上答案必然确定(必然性)和只是可能成立(可能性)的场景,测试Qwen3-4B在三种设置下表达不确定的准确度:口头措辞式的模糊表达、直接说不知道、以及数字把握度评分。
  2. 在确定场景中模型总能准确表达确定,但在不确定场景中,模型错误地表现出确定的比例分别为:口头表达设置14%,拒绝回答设置27%,数字评分设置高达80%,几乎总是给出满分5分。
  3. 研究者借助可解释性工具(circuit-tracer与transcoder特征分析)追踪模型内部驱动输出的具体成分,发现一种不对称结构:表达确定依赖大量共享特征组成的广泛联盟,而表达不确定则依赖一小组专门特征主动覆盖默认状态。
  4. 把这20个关键的不确定特征人为放大2.5倍以上后,原本错误显得确定的回答中约94%被纠正为恰当的不确定表达。同样的放大操作也让拒绝回答设置的准确率从72.7%提升到82.7%,在中文和意大利语翻译的题目上也观察到类似效果,说明这些特征编码的是抽象的不确定信号,而非仅针对英语词汇。
  5. 但在数字评分设置中,同样的干预几乎没有效果,因为模型给出满分5分的概率已经接近饱和,这表明用数字打分让模型表达把握度是最不可靠的方式。

为什么重要

在医疗或情报分析等高风险领域使用AI时,分清模型是真的有把握还是只是听起来自信至关重要。这项研究从模型内部电路层面解释了过度自信的成因,并证明可以直接进行干预纠正,为打造更值得信赖的AI系统提供了具体思路。

本文术语

  • 过度自信(overconfidence) · 在证据不足以支持确定结论时,仍然给出斩钉截铁、自信满满的回答
  • 拒绝回答(abstention) · 模型直接回答不知道,而不做出明确判断
  • transcoder特征 · 可解释性工具用来拆解模型内部计算的一种可理解的基本单元
  • 电路(circuit) · 模型内部一组相互连接、共同产生特定行为(如表达确定或不确定)的特征通路
  • 必然性/可能性(necessity/possibility) · 逻辑场景中,答案要么是唯一确定的(必然性),要么只是多种可能之一(可能性)

无法转载的图表

  • 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.
在原文中查看图表 →

论文原文摘要（英文）

Large language models tend to overconfidence, giving assertive answers when the evidence suggests hedging or abstention. Using controlled reasoning scenarios that manipulate logical necessity and possibility, we study this behavior in Qwen3-4B, across three ways to express uncertainty: verbal epistemic markers, abstention, and numeric confidence scores. Our results confirm this tendency toward overconfidence, particularly when the model is prompted to output a numeric confidence score. At the interpretability level, we propose a method that differentially identifies transcoder features responsible for uncertainty and certainty. Our analysis reveals Qwen3-4B's default mechanism favors certainty generation through a broad coalition of shared features, while uncertainty is implemented as a sparse override mediated by a small set of dedicated features. Intervening on these uncertainty features both causally proves this imbalance underlying overconfidence and also mitigate overconfident errors. The same set of features generalise across the three uncertainty-expression settings, languages, and an out-of-distribution modality task.

作者 · Davide Mazzaccara, Leonardo Bertolazzi, Raffaella Bernardi

在 arXiv 阅读

最新论文

全部论文 →

METAL MEDIA 最新报道