Bayesian Elicitation with LLMs: Model Size Helps, Extra "Reasoning" Doesn't Always

Quantitative research across the social and behavioral sciences depends on human subject experiments that are expensive, slow, and subject to sampling bias. Here we show that pretrained large language models induce risk-equivalent estimators of conditional expectations under squared loss, establishing restricted functional risk equivalence: under squared loss, the LLM induces an estimator whose risk matches the Bayes optimal risk for squared-loss prediction of conditional expectations for any inference that depends on the data only through the conditional mean. We formalize the LLM as a misspecified functional estimator $T(\hat{P}_n)$ trained on i.i.d.\ data, decompose the estimation error into representation bias $ε_{\mathrm{rep}}$ and optimization error, and prove that under mild regularity conditions the LLM's expected error converges to the irreducible population variance plus the squared representation bias, with the representation bias bounded by the Pinsker inequality. The identifiability error $δ$ propagates into the effective bias, inflating the asymptotic risk floor. We establish restricted functional risk equivalence via a bidirectional Le Cam deficiency analysis: the forward deficiency vanishes asymptotically while the reverse deficiency is exactly zero. We provide finite-sample concentration bounds and a calibration protocol with explicit decision rules. The result is a precise, provable statement: a well-calibrated LLM achieves the Bayes-optimal risk for conditional-mean-dependent inference, bounded by explicit scope conditions. In practical applications, this means that under satisfied conditions and well-calibrated models, large language models can be used in many prediction and decision-making tasks that originally relied on human experiments, approximating near-optimal statistical inference at lower cost.

Uncertainty estimation is important for deploying LLMs in high-stakes applications such as healthcare and finance, where hallucinations can appear fluent and plausible while being factually incorrect, making it difficult for users to judge whether an output should be trusted. Existing methods require one or more full autoregressive generations to estimate uncertainty, which introduces substantial inference cost and often delays uncertainty assessment. In this paper, we investigate whether effective uncertainty estimation can be achieved with partial generation or even input-only information. Specifically, we first develop a unified framework that formulates uncertainty estimation as an early estimation problem over the autoregressive generation process of LLMs. This framework organises existing and proposed estimators by the information they observe, ranging from multi-generation to input-only prediction, and clarifies the performance-cost trade-off underlying different uncertainty estimation methods. Building on this view, we study two largely underexplored low-cost settings: estimating uncertainty with part of the generation, and predicting uncertainty from the input prompt. We propose Logit Magnitude, which uses top-M logit evidence to estimate uncertainty from an early-stopped generation prefix, and MetaUE, which distils generation-based uncertainty into a lightweight input-only estimator trained with uncertainty scores. Extensive experiments on general and domain-specific benchmarks show that Logit Magnitude achieves strong performance, and partial generations of LLMs are often sufficient for effective uncertainty estimation. MetaUE further provides a competitive input-only approximation in several settings. These findings suggest that effective uncertainty estimation requires less generation than commonly assumed, enabling unreliable responses to be identified earlier.

Uncertainty estimation is critical for deploying reasoning language models, yet remains poorly understood under extended chain-of-thought reasoning. We study parallel sampling as a fully black-box approach using verbalized confidence and self-consistency. Across three reasoning models and 17 tasks spanning mathematics, STEM, and humanities, we characterize how these signals scale. Both self-consistency and verbalized confidence scale in reasoning models, but self-consistency exhibits lower initial discrimination and lags behind verbalized confidence under moderate sampling. Most uncertainty gains, however, arise from signal combination: with just two samples, a hybrid estimator improves AUROC by up to $+12$ on average and already outperforms either signal alone even when scaled to much larger budgets, after which returns diminish. These effects are domain-dependent: in mathematics, the native domain of RLVR-style post-training, reasoning models achieve higher uncertainty quality and exhibit both stronger complementarity and faster scaling than in STEM or humanities.