grounding-in-logprobs

Grounding the Greek letters in token probabilities

Parent: recursive-harness

The theory runs on α, ε, δ, k — measured indirectly (mutation tests, residual ratios). But the LLM emits REAL numbers at every step: per-token logprobs. Can those numbers feed the theory? Yes — through three bridges, behind one warning sign.

The trap first: token probability ≠ correctness probability

Three known failure modes:

  • RLHF destroys calibration — base models' logprobs are surprisingly well-calibrated (e.g. on multiple choice); post-RLHF models are badly overconfident (the famous GPT-4 tech-report calibration plots);
  • surface-form competition — one meaning has countless phrasings, so sequence probability is diluted across paraphrases; low P(sequence)P(\text{sequence}) does not mean wrong;
  • confident hallucination off-manifold — precisely where the model leaves its competence landscape (coupling-to-the-learner), high logprob and wrongness coexist.

Conclusion up front: raw logprobs are pre-gates and budget routers, never acceptance — the metric proposes, the gate disposes (soft-identity-transfer's two-tier rule).

Bridge 1: semantic aggregation → an α̂ signal

Sample n answers, cluster by semantic equivalence (entailment both ways — note this is soft equality again), and compute entropy over the CLUSTERS: semantic entropy (Farquhar et al., Nature 2024). It defeats surface-form competition and is a far better hallucination signal than raw logprob. This is the rigorous form of the "self-consistency as cheap pre-gate" idea in coupling-to-the-learner: low semantic entropy → proceed; high → route to a stronger gate or a further split, before real verification budget is spent.

Bridge 2: calibration → p's that may enter the ledger

Calibration error (ECE) is measurable, and repairable with a small labeled set (temperature scaling, isotonic regression). Only a calibrated confidence deserves to touch the α ledger of root-protocol. And the harness has a free calibration set: the gates' own historical verdicts — every gate decision is a labeled example of "model claimed p, truth was y." A beautiful loop: the longer the harness runs, the better calibrated its learner's numbers become — gates manufacture the ground truth that makes logprobs meaningful.

Bridge 3: entropy localization → a token-level readout of ◇/□

The per-token next-token entropy profile has modal meaning: long low-entropy stretches = (the context forces the continuation — inertia); high-entropy spikes = (a genuine choice point). modal-status-labels's labels acquire a real-number, token-level readout. Consequence for budget: concentrate verification on the high-entropy spans — that is where the model actually chose (and could have chosen wrong); low-entropy stretches are coasting. This also instruments in-stage search (non-determinism-and-infinite-branching): branch points = entropy spikes.

A direct instrument: perplexity as the terrain probe

coupling-to-the-learner said ε is a landscape but gave no meter. Perplexity of the task/context under the model is a real-valued familiarity probe: high perplexity = off-manifold = expect high ε. So the P of P×C gets a partial instrument, and probe-then-split (split-granularity-equilibrium) gains a zeroth step: read the perplexity before spending real probe budget.

The dashboard extension (table): signal | feeds | caveat

  • semantic entropy (n samples, cluster, entropy) | pre-gate α̂, routing | costs n samples; clusters need the entailment judge
  • calibrated confidence (ECE-corrected) | the α ledger | needs labeled set — use gate history; recalibrate per task family
  • token entropy profile | ◇/□ labels, verification allocation | entropy ≠ importance always; some low-entropy tokens are load-bearing
  • perplexity of context | ε-landscape probe, P×C | familiarity ≠ correctness; watch Goodhart if optimized against

One line (bold)

The LLM never delivers just an artifact — it delivers (artifact, a stream of real numbers); aggregated, calibrated, and localized, the numbers measure the terrain, label the choice points, and route the budget — but acceptance belongs to the gate, always.

about this entry

One of sijie's wiki entries. The AI on this site is grounded in the same corpus and answers in sijie's voice, with citations back to entries like this one — answering costs sijie money, so it waits behind a code: enter an access code →