# The Score Granularity Gap in Black-Box LLM Classification: A Comparative Study of Confidence Constructions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22179 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.22179/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 23 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05426/) (2017)
- [BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.10044/) (2019)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06146/) (2019)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.01007/) (2019)
- [Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08500/) (2017)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.02406/) (2022)
- [Conformal Risk Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.02814/) (2022)
- [Know Your Limits: A Survey of Abstention in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18418/) (2024)
- [Relying on the Unreliable: The Impact of Language Models' Reluctance to Express Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06730/) (2024)
- [On Verbalized Confidence Scores for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14737/) (2024)
- [Calibration in Deep Learning: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01222/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model Confidence Estimation via Black-Box Access](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04370/) (2024)
- [Multi-Perspective Consistency Enhances Confidence Estimation in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11279/) (2024)
- [MlingConf: A Comprehensive Study of Multilingual Confidence Estimation on Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13606/) (2024)
- [Trust in One Round: Confidence Estimation for Large Language Models via Structural Signals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00977/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents: A Taxonomy, an Evaluation Protocol, and an Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07395/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as black-box classifiers in pipelines that automate confident decisions and route uncertain ones to human review. Such selective prediction needs a confidence score that an operator can threshold at a chosen risk level. Prior work asks whether LLM confidence is well calibrated or well ranked; we ask a complementary, deployment-oriented question that has been largely overlooked: at what resolution can the score be thresholded? We call the answer the score granularity gap. Through a controlled comparison of seven ways to build a confidence score, from a single verbalized number, to token probabilities, to querying the model many times and combining the answers, across 25 model-dataset pairs (9 LLMs, 3 benchmarks), we find that single-shot verbalized confidence, once correctly converted to a class probability, ranks cases surprisingly well, yet takes only a handful of distinct values. It therefore offers an operator only a few coarse thresholds, no matter how well it ranks. We show which constructions widen this gap, at what inference cost, and with what effect on ranking, notably that multi-query aggregation helps weak models but can degrade already-strong ones. We translate these trade-offs into concrete deployment guidance.