mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

GRACE: A Granular Benchmark for Evaluating Model Calibration against Human Calibration

arXiv 2502.19684 ↗First posted 27 Feb 2025cs.CLcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Language models are often miscalibrated, leading to confidently incorrect answers. We introduce GRACE, a benchmark for language model calibration that incorporates comparison with human calibration. GRACE consists of question-answer pairs, in which each question contains a series of clues that gradually become easier, all leading to the same answer; models must answer correctly as early as possible as the clues are revealed. This setting permits granular measurement of model calibration based on how early, accurately, and confidently a model answers. After collecting these questions, we host live human vs. model competitions to gather 1,749 data points on human and model teams' timing, accuracy, and confidence. We propose a metric, CalScore, that uses GRACE to analyze model calibration errors and identify types of model miscalibration that differ from human behavior. We find that although humans are less accurate than models, humans are generally better calibrated. Since state-of-the-art models struggle on GRACE, it effectively evaluates progress on improving model calibration.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Feb 2025.

Builds on

23 of 42 references.

References · 23

  1. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  2. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  4. 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,538
  5. 2019Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Featurescited by 950
  6. 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 946
  7. 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 788
  8. 2021Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLPcited by 447
  9. 2020AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questionscited by 385
  10. 2020Selective Question Answering under Domain Shiftcited by 228
  11. 2024Relying on the Unreliable: The Impact of Language Models' Reluctance to Express Uncertaintycited by 106
  12. 2016Opponent Modeling in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 94
11 more
  1. 2023Navigating the Grey Area: How Expressions of Uncertainty and Overconfidence Affect Language Modelscited by 91
  2. 2015Posterior calibration and exploratory analysis for natural language processing modelscited by 75
  3. 2022CREPE: Open-Domain Question Answering with False Presuppositionscited by 70
  4. 2024Calibrating Large Language Models Using Their Generations Onlycited by 63
  5. 2024Linguistic Calibration of Long-Form Generationscited by 59
  6. 2023Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness -- Except When They Are Convincingly Wrongcited by 51
  7. 2021Fool Me Twice: Entailment from Wikipedia Gamificationcited by 50
  8. 2019Quizbowl: The Case for Incremental Question Answeringcited by 36
  9. 2022Calibrated Interpretation: Confidence Estimation in Semantic Parsingcited by 33
  10. 2024PEDANTS: Cheap but Effective and Interpretable Answer Equivalencecited by 31
  11. 2024Crowd-Calibrator: Can Annotator Disagreement Inform Calibration in Subjective Tasks?cited by 13

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 3.

5 papers.