원문 초록
Language-model systems use self-judgment to decide which answers to release, review, or recompute. Because intervention is costly, an assurance score must rank errors well at the available budget, not merely over the full ranking. We compare the judge's continuous verdict-token score with a supervised correctness probe trained on attention-head activations from the same prompt. Exact identities link fixed-budget error recall to residual risk and show that AUROC averages recall over all budgets. Across three open 7-12B models on GSM8K and MATH, the probe finds 1.3-22.5 additional percentage points of errors at 5% review in all six model-dataset settings (median 7.4 points). At 10% routing, probe-guided allocation improves accuracy over equal-cost random allocation in both GSM8K experiments, but beats judge-guided routing only for the weaker judge. Cross-dataset transfer lowers probe AUROC for every model in both directions relative to target-domain training. Because dataset, weight precision, and generation budget change together, this measures a joint protocol shift rather than a dataset-only effect. Internal signals can improve supervised, in-domain budget allocation, but are not domain-general confidence estimators.
제출 이력
확인된 버전만 표시합니다. 전체 제출 이력은 arXiv 원문에서 확인하세요.
- arXiv:2611.14323v1제출 시각 미확인
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
공통 태그로 연결된 공개 논문이 아직 없습니다.
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.