Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

A Survey of Calibration Process for Black-Box LLMs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2412.12767 v1 pith:7D2HGAJL submitted 2024-12-17 cs.AI cs.CL

classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords calibrationllmsblack-boxprocesssurveytechniquesfirstgithub
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance in semantic understanding and generation, yet accurately assessing their output reliability remains a significant challenge. While numerous studies have explored calibration techniques, they primarily focus on White-Box LLMs with accessible parameters. Black-Box LLMs, despite their superior performance, pose heightened requirements for calibration techniques due to their API-only interaction constraints. Although recent researches have achieved breakthroughs in black-box LLMs calibration, a systematic survey of these methodologies is still lacking. To bridge this gap, we presents the first comprehensive survey on calibration techniques for black-box LLMs. We first define the Calibration Process of LLMs as comprising two interrelated key steps: Confidence Estimation and Calibration. Second, we conduct a systematic review of applicable methods within black-box settings, and provide insights on the unique challenges and connections in implementing these key steps. Furthermore, we explore typical applications of Calibration Process in black-box LLMs and outline promising future research directions, providing new perspectives for enhancing reliability and human-machine alignment. This is our GitHub link: https://github.com/LiangruXie/Calibration-Process-in-Black-Box-LLMs

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can You Trust the Confidence? ConfBench for Vision-Language Models on Document Extraction

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Vision-language models vary widely in how trustworthy their confidence scores are on document extraction, with stronger models and OCR-plus-image input helping most, as measured on the new ConfBench benchmark.

  2. Understanding How University Guidelines Address Privacy and Security Issues of Generative AI in Academic Settings

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Qualitative analysis of 46 university GenAI policy documents shows privacy and security concerns are acknowledged but inconsistently addressed, with vague terminology, reliance on existing frameworks, and limited conc...

  3. Maximizing Confidence Alone Improves Reasoning

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Reinforcement learning with a reward equal to the negative entropy of the model's own token distribution improves benchmark accuracy without any labeled answers.

Pith tools