Calibration vs Decision Making: Revisiting the Reliability Paradox in Unlearned Language Models
Divyaksh Shukla, Ashutosh Modi

TL;DR
This paper investigates the relationship between calibration and decision-making reliability in language models, revealing that good calibration can coexist with reliance on spurious correlations even after unlearning.
Contribution
It demonstrates that calibration error alone does not guarantee reliable decision rules in unlearned language models, highlighting the reliability paradox in this context.
Findings
Fine-tuned models have low calibration error (~0.04) compared to pretrained models (>0.5).
Models after unlearning retain low calibration error despite reduced accuracy.
Attribution analysis shows increased reliance on correlation-based tokens post-unlearning.
Abstract
Machine unlearning aims to remove the influence of specific training data from a model while preserving reliable behavior on the remaining data, making reliable prediction and uncertainty estimation essential for evaluation. Calibration is commonly used as a proxy for reliability in language models, but low calibration error does not necessarily imply reliable decision rules, as models may rely on spurious correlations while remaining well calibrated. We investigate this gap in generative language models using the multiple-choice question-answering evaluation protocol on the TOFU benchmark, measuring probabilistic reliability with calibration metrics (ECE, MCE, Brier) and decision-rule reliability via attribution-based shortcut detection with Integrated Gradients and Local Mutual Information. We find that fine-tuned models achieve low calibration error (ECE ~ 0.04) compared to…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
