Calibrating LLMs with Semantic-level Reward
Quick Take
The CSR framework enhances LLM calibration by using semantic rewards instead of verbalized confidence scores.
Key Points
- CSR combines correctness and semantic calibration rewards.
- Reduces expected calibration error by up to 40%.
- Improves AUROC by up to 31% over baselines.
📖 Reader Mode
~2 min readAbstract:As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in consequential settings such as medical question answering and legal reasoning, the ability to estimate when their outputs are likely to be correct is essential for safe and reliable use, requiring well-calibrated uncertainty. Standard reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) trains models with a binary correctness reward that is indifferent to confidence, providing no penalty for confident but wrong predictions and thereby degrading calibration. Recent work addresses this by training models to produce verbalized confidence scores alongside answers and rewarding agreement with correctness. However, verbalized confidence is calibrated at the token level and thus exhibits inconsistency across textual variations with same semantic meaning. We propose \textbf{Calibration with Semantic Reward (CSR)}, a framework that calibrates language models directly in semantic space without a verbalized confidence interface. CSR combines the correctness reward with a novel semantic calibration reward that encourages exploitation among correct rollouts by promoting semantic agreement, and exploration among incorrect ones by discouraging spurious consistency. Experiments across three model families on HotpotQA (in-distribution) and TriviaQA, MSMARCO, and NQ-Open (out-of-distribution) show that CSR consistently achieves lower ECE and higher AUROC than verbalized-confidence baselines across nearly all settings, reducing ECE by up to $40\%$ and improving AUROC by up to $31\%$ over verbalized-confidence baselines, with calibration behavior generalizing robustly across all four evaluation settings.
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.15588 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2605.15588v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.15588 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Ruijia Niu [view email]
[v1]
Fri, 15 May 2026 03:55:11 UTC (2,364 KB)
— Originally published at arxiv.org
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The reliability of LLM judges for evaluating deep research agents is critically assessed using the REFLECT benchmark.