mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Laya as a Typed Probabilistic Assessor: An Independent Reproduction and a Preregistered Study of Calibration and Selective Escalation

arXiv 2609.33843 ↗First posted 27 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The shipped Laya Typed-Decisions checkpoint, a 421M-parameter ModernBERT-large assessor that answers typed choice/noul/score questions over workflow state, is uniformly under-confident. The signed confidence-accuracy gap is -0.214, every occupied reliability bin's accuracy exceeds its confidence, and that sign uniformity collapses every binned ECE variant to the same value, 0.214. The card frames the risk as over-confidence; the measured direction is the opposite, and the direction decides which way a confidence-gated cascade fails. A single disjointly fitted temperature (T=0.469, sharpening) removes most of the miscalibration (held-out ECE 0.204 to 0.037) and outperforms the shipped per-option-count table. The frozen selection rule instead chose isotonic regression, which overfit and failed its held-out NLL contrast on both tracks, so hypothesis H2 is not supported. Re-running the released checkpoint on its full official test split reproduces the card's headline accuracy (0.767 vs. 0.766). The retrospective E1 reproduction preceded the analysis freeze; E2-E8 were prospectively preregistered, and 20 of 22 executed confirmatory tests reject under Benjamini-Hochberg FDR at q=0.05 (two descoped). The frozen gate beats random escalation but misses its 10% accepted-set error target on both tracks, an exploratory out-of-distribution probe finds no zero-shot transfer (accuracy 0.617), and every score measures agreement with a synthetic teacher whose self-agreement ceiling (0.735) the specialist exceeds. Per-decision predictions, run manifests, and the frozen preregistration are in the ancillary files. The author has no affiliation with the model's publisher, the dataset's publisher, or TypeSafe.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.

Builds on

16 of 33 references.

References · 16

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  3. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
  4. 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 799
  5. 2023FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performancecited by 791
  6. 2024Smarter, Better, Faster, Longer: A Modern Bidirectional Encoder for Fast, Memory Efficient, and Long Context Finetuning and Inferencecited by 527
  7. 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 454
  8. 2019Measuring Calibration in Deep Learningcited by 443
  9. 2019Verified Uncertainty Calibrationcited by 307
  10. 2023The False Promise of Imitating Proprietary LLMscited by 254
  11. 2023Large Language Models Sensitivity to The Order of Options in Multiple-Choice Questionscited by 249
  12. 2020Mitigating Bias in Calibration Error Estimationcited by 100
4 more
  1. 2023When Does Confidence-Based Cascade Deferral Suffice?cited by 58
  2. 2026LLM-as-a-Verifier: A General-Purpose Verification Frameworkcited by 21
  3. 2026JEV-as-a-Judge: Accept When Confident, Escalate When Unsurecited by 14
  4. 2026BERT-as-a-Judge: A Robust Alternative to Lexical Methods for Efficient Reference-Based LLM Evaluationcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.