Confidence-Ordering Reversal under Contextual Priors in Neural Decoding

Abstract

Contextual priors improve neural-to-language decoding by reshaping candidate scores. However, confidence is read from the same reshaped scores, so the errors a prior leaves behind can become more confident with no change in accuracy to reveal it. We study how a prior shapes confidence in speech retrieval on MEG-MASC and MOUS using local decoding scores, a contextual prior combined by additive shallow fusion, and the fused top-two margin as confidence. Among initially incorrect predictions, we find a confidence-ordering reversal: a larger margin makes a repair more likely when the correct candidate starts near the top of the local ranking, but less likely when it starts lower. On MEG-MASC, pooled correctness AUROC is 0.87, yet AUROC separating repairs from residual errors falls from 0.70 at initial ranks 2-3 to 0.39 at ranks 21-50. Errors starting beyond rank 20, inside the reversed region, make up 46.6% of all post-fusion errors. We propose a score-level account: a repair must first close the correct candidate's initial deficit, limiting its final margin, whereas a residual error can build a large margin between two incorrect candidates. A causal intervention that changes only the fusion weight moves the reversal to deeper ranks as predicted. Under a word-level LM prior, it keeps moving after accuracy gain peaks, so a weight chosen for accuracy does not settle confidence. Reading local and prior scores separately improves selective decoding: the decoder answers on 74.5% of windows instead of 56.7%, while 92% of output sets still contain the correct candidate. Confidence after contextual fusion should retain the local and contextual evidence behind each prediction, not just the fused scores. Project website: https://confidencereversal.github.io/; Code: https://github.com/AmadeusFake/NeuDecodingConfReversal

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.