PreprintCited by 75Speech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing TechniquesIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Reducing conversational agents' overconfidence through linguistic calibration

Open access
Mielke, Sabrina J., Szlam, Arthur, Dinan, Emily, Boureau, Y-Lan·2020·arXiv

Abstract

While improving neural dialogue agents' factual accuracy is the object of much research, another important aspect of communication, less studied in the setting of neural dialogue, is transparency about ignorance. In this work, we analyze to what extent state-of-the-art chit-chat models are linguistically calibrated in the sense that their verbalized expression of doubt (or confidence) matches the likelihood that the model's responses are factually incorrect (or correct). We find that these models are poorly calibrated, yet we show that likelihood of correctness can accurately be predicted. By incorporating such metacognitive features into the training of a controllable generation model, we obtain a dialogue agent with greatly improved linguistic calibration. While improving neural dialogue agents' factual accuracy is the object of much research, another important aspect of communication, less studied in the setting of neural dialogue, is transparency about ignorance. In this work, we analyze to what extent state-of-the-art chit-chat models are linguistically calibrated in the sense that their verbalized expression of doubt (or confidence) matches the likelihood that the model's responses are factually incorrect (or correct). We find that these models are poorly calibrated, yet we show that likelihood of correctness can accurately be predicted. By incorporating such metacognitive features into the training of a controllable generation model, we obtain a dialogue agent with greatly improved linguistic calibration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2012.14983

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Post-training should align the model to 'know what it knows' rather than add knowledge.

    “We follow the principle that post-training should align the model to 'know what it knows' rather than add knowledge (Gekhman et al., 2024; Mielke et al., 2020).”

    From The Llama 3 Herd of Models (2024) · cites this paper as Mielke et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. - 2078-2092. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mielke, S. J., Szlam, A., Dinan, E., & Boureau, Y.-L.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Meta (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Mielke, Sabrina J.
  • Szlam, Arthur
  • Dinan, Emily
  • Boureau, Y-Lan
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
10
Pages
857-872
ISSN
2307-387X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4290994954
Cited by
72
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 3
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
chatbots, overconfidence, metacognition, factual accuracy, controllable generation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review