Evaluation Pitfalls and Sparsity Limitations in LLM-based Confidence Estimates for Classification

Confidence estimation is essential when LLMs are used for classification, indicating when predictions can be trusted. However, common approaches such as verbalization produce extremely sparse outputs. For instance, Qwen3-32B verbalizes only eight unique confidence values on SST-2, with over half being exactly 95%, a pattern we observe consistently across four datasets and two LLMs. Besides limiting practical utility, we show that this sparsity critically affects evaluation: the choice of interpolation in area under the accuracy-rejection curve (AUARC) dramatically alters rankings, with consistency sampling dropping from best to worst under stepwise versus linear interpolation. We advocate for standardizing stepwise interpolation for a fairer comparison. Under such a fair evaluation, we find that weighting verbalized digits by token probabilities, a method we term verbalization logprobs, addresses sparsity and achieves the best AUARC (+2.3 points over vanilla verbalization) without incurring additional inference cost.

Consistent but Miscalibrated: Evaluating LLM Limitations for Risk Communication in Natural Language

LLMs are increasingly deployed as post-hoc explainers of AI-generated outputs, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably communicate probabilistic information in natural language. For this role to be viable, models must produce identical verbal descriptions for identical inputs, and select descriptions that accurately reflect the magnitude of the underlying numerical quantities. We evaluate whether nine LLMs meet these requirements within a two-stage prediction pipeline, in which an upstream model has produced probabilistic outputs characterized by their likelihood and uncertainty, and LLMs are tasked with selecting an appropriate verbal descriptor for each. We simulate predictions from an upstream model by taking samples from a Beta distribution parameterized by its mode and prior sample size. We then prompt LLMs to explain these predictions under six domain contexts and with ten temperature settings, and repeating each experiment ten times. We find that LLMs are generally consistent but miscalibrated, with substantially weaker performance on uncertainty than on likelihood tasks. Providing models with precomputed summary statistics (mode and prior sample size) reduced sensitivity to contextual framing but did not resolve the underlying miscalibration, suggesting that the bottleneck resides in the verbalization step itself. These findings indicate that current LLMs do not yet constitute reliable zero-shot standalone risk communication tools for probabilistic predictions.