The Practitioner's LLM Curriculum ← Week 11 · Calibration Curve Demo
Interactive · Week 11 · Section 1

Why RLHF models are confidently wrong.

Five training stages, same task, 500 samples each. The reliability diagram plots stated confidence (x-axis) against empirical accuracy in that confidence bin (y-axis). Perfect calibration lies on the diagonal. Watch what happens through the training pipeline: base models are roughly calibrated; SFT shifts confidence up slightly; RLHF cranks confidence to the ceiling regardless of actual correctness; temperature scaling pulls it back; verbal hedging fixes it differently. ECE quantifies the gap. The visceral lesson: if you trust an RLHF model's reported confidence, you're trusting the wrong number.

Pick a training stage
Expected Calibration Error
average gap, weighted by bin size
Overall accuracy
across 500 samples
Mean stated confidence
what the model claims
Overconfidence
stated minus actual

Reliability diagram · stated confidence vs empirical accuracy

10 confidence bins · 500 predictions
In the chart
Perfect calibration (y = x)
Empirical accuracy per bin
Calibration curve through bin midpoints
Miscalibration gap
How to read it
When the curve sits below the diagonal, the model is overconfident at that confidence level. When above, underconfident. Total gap weighted by bin size = ECE.

Per-bin breakdown

What's happening here