Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.26645

Reasoning-Aware Multicalibrated Reliability Predictors for Language Models

Abstract

As people increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs) for information, model providers need to communicate meaningful estimates of whether individual responses are correct or, more generally, reliable. In the context of hallucinations, existing work uses multicalibration to make such reliability predictions meaningful across application-relevant groups, such as prompt topics. Topic groups alone, however, can conceal systematic errors: within the same topic and confidence level, responses with different chain-of-thought (CoT) properties may exhibit opposing errors that cancel on average. In this work, we introduce reasoning-aware multicalibration, a framework that supplements application-relevant topic groups with groups derived from observable properties of CoT traces. We highlight that, theoretically, groupings based on CoT are "internally important", i.e., groupings for which the multicalibration guarantee is not societally crucial as it is for high-risk topics, but whose inclusion in the multicalibration procedure could easily and significantly improve predictive accuracy of the final reliability predictor. Empirically, we apply our framework to hallucination prediction and unsafe-response detection across a variety of benchmarks, and find that adding CoT groups to topic-based calibration reduces Brier score in both tasks. Interestingly, we find that multicalibrating with respect to CoT groups alone (without any topic information) already improves calibration across topics, suggesting that the predictor's errors depend on how the model reasoned, rather than what it was asked about in the prompt.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ekaterina Fedorova, Alessandro Morosini, Chara Podimata. 2026-10-19. Reasoning-Aware Multicalibrated Reliability Predictors for Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.26645

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is AI Widening the Wage Gap? A Hybrid Agentic Simulation for Labor Equity

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping labor markets, yet its effects on wage distribution and the underlying mechanisms remain insufficiently understood. Conventional analytical approaches are limited in their ability to directly examine the dynamic evolution of worker behavior and income distribution under sustained AI shocks and counterfactual policy scenarios. To address this limitation, we present a hybrid agentic framework that aims to challenges of scalability of rule-based models and the limited explainability in LLM-agentic frameworks. Using this framework and sociodemographic data from China, we simulate changes in wage distribution under repeated AI shocks. The results show that both the average-wage ratio between workers in the top and bottom income deciles (T10/B10) and the Gini coefficient increase persistently, suggesting that AI shocks widen the wage gap and exacerbate income inequality. This pattern of a widening wage gap remains robust across alternative large language model decision engines and 30 Monte Carlo simulations. We further conduct counterfactual policy experiments. The results show that education subsidies targeted at low-income workers increase both the number of skill-upgrading attempts and the number of successful upgrades, with particularly pronounced improvements in the upskilling success probability of workers in the bottom income decile. These effects enable the policy to partially mitigate wage inequality. The proposed framework provides an interpretable simulation approach for examining the effects and mechanisms of AI shocks on wage distribution. It also offers policymakers a complementary analytical tool for evaluating policy interventions.

cs.CY↗

Opening Knowledge Gaps Drives Scientific Progress

Knowledge production is often viewed as an endogenous process in which discovery arises through the recombination of existing theories, findings, and concepts. Yet not all recombinations are equally valuable, and identifying those that may prove most generative remains challenging. We propose that a crucial form of recombination occurs when linking concepts creates knowledge gaps---empty regions in the conceptual landscape that focus scientific attention on unexplored connections. Using computational topology, we develop a method to identify knowledge gaps in science at scale. In this framework, gaps form when new connections complete cycles in evolving networks of scientific concepts. We apply the method to 34,363,623 papers in Microsoft Academic Graph spanning 1900--2020. The main analyses use samples ranging from 8,643,571 to 31,983,201 papers. Compared with papers that introduce novel concept pairs without opening gaps, gap-opening papers have greater long-term citation impact, are more disruptive of prior work, and exhibit greater delayed recognition. Gap-opening papers receive fewer citations within five years of publication but more over twenty years, consistent with scientific communities needing time to recognize and develop newly opened research territories. Evidence for the generative capacity of gap-opening papers---as indicated by high citation impact and disruption---replicates in five additional databases (OpenAlex, the PubMed Knowledge Graph, Dimensions, American Physical Society journals, and United States patents) and across eight concept vocabularies, including several derived directly from text. Together, these results reveal a distinctive generative role for gap opening in scientific discovery.

cs.CY↗

It's Safer to Give Personhood to Bears than to Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) developers are rhetorically flirting with the idea that AI systems might have interests or moral rights. While there has been a large volume of research on whether AI deserves rights, there has been less exploration of what AI rights would mean in practice. This paper explores the institutional dimension of AI rights: what it would take to recognize moral or legal rights for AIs, and the attendant opportunities and dangers. Unlike all other nonhuman entities to which humanity has extended rights, AI systems are in principle capable of acquiring and wielding institutional power without human aid and mediation. AIs with rights would be able to legitimately, and AIs with power able to unpreventably, abridge human interests. Accordingly, giving rights even to rather dumb AI systems would entail binding the fate of humanity to potentially unpredictable nonhumans. Therefore, I advance the rather grandiose claim that to empower AI to claim or to exercise inherent rights would be a world-historical gamble with human self-determination. In my view, no individual researcher, firm, state, or even international organization has the moral right to authorize this gamble.

cs.CY↗