Sigmoid Head for Quality Estimation under Language Ambiguity

Tu Anh Dinh, Jan Niehues · Jan 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Language model (LM) probability is not a reliable quality estimator, as natural language is ambiguous. When multiple output options are valid, the model's probability distribution is spread across them, which can misleadingly indicate low output quality. This issue is caused by two reasons: (1) LMs' final output activation is softmax, which does not allow multiple correct options to receive high probabilities simultaneuously and (2) LMs' training data is single, one-hot encoded references, indicating that there is only one correct option at each output step. We propose training a module for Quality Estimation on top of pre-trained LMs to address these limitations. The module, called Sigmoid Head, is an extra unembedding head with sigmoid activation to tackle the first limitation. To tackle the second limitation, during the negative sampling process to train the Sigmoid Head, we use a heuristic to avoid selecting potentially alternative correct tokens. Our Sigmoid Head is computationally efficient during training and inference. The probability from Sigmoid Head is notably better quality signal compared to the original softmax head. As the Sigmoid Head does not rely on human-annotated quality data, it is more robust to out-of-domain settings compared to supervised QE.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.