When Should a Language Model Trust Itself? Same-Model Self-Verification as a Conditional Confidence Signal

Whether a language model "knows what it knows" matters for trustworthy deployment and for deciding when it should abstain. Prior work usually measures this through one channel: verbalized confidence, a linear probe on hidden states, or agreement among sampled answers (semantic entropy), and often treats these as interchangeable. We compare all three in a pre-registered audit of five Qwen2.5 models (0.5B-7B, including a base/instruct pair at 7B) on factual retrieval (PopQA, SimpleQA) and multi-step reasoning (GSM8K, MATH). First, probes trained on prefill states to predict whether sampled answers will disagree become informative earlier for retrieval (about 7% of layer depth on average) than for reasoning (about 28%). The pre-registered five-layer test supported this only marginally; a finer 21-layer follow-up, designed after those results, supports it more clearly. In most retrieval cells, however, a prompt-only TF-IDF classifier matches the probe, so the early signal may reflect surface features of the question. Second, verbalized confidence is unstable: slightly different prompt templates yield scores that barely correlate. Third, Expected Calibration Error is misleading: verbal confidence looks well calibrated because it clusters near the base rate while discriminating poorly, whereas sampling agreement has worse ECE but about twice the resolution. Of five pre-registered hypotheses, two were falsified, one was partly supported, one was not supported, and one could not be tested because the base model's verbal confidence was degenerate.

Large language models can report a numerical confidence together with generated content, but it is unclear whether this report is more than calibrated rhetoric. We analyze three training-free signals: confidence verbalized with the answer, post-hoc $P(\mathrm{True})$, and agreement with three additional generations on the same 100 TriviaQA questions for two model families. Direct verbalization is a surprisingly strong baseline: after auditing benchmark errors, it reaches AUROC 0.956 and 0.937 for correctness prediction. Three-sample agreement is substantially weaker (0.765 and 0.790), and a fixed interpolation with verbalized confidence has no statistically reliable benefit. Four of nine errors from one model and two of eight from the other receive unanimous sample support, showing that self-consistency can amplify shared misconceptions. Re-eliciting confidence for the same fixed answers with equivalent prompts changes scores by 0.043 to 0.084 on average and flips 4% to 9% of decisions at a 0.8 threshold. An exploratory audit of 100 confidence-tagged biography claims further finds only a modest confidence gap between supported and contradicted claims. These results argue that useful self-reports remain sensitive to elicitation, correlated errors, and benchmark noise.

Pass@k and other methods of scaling inference compute can improve language model performance in domains with external verifiers, including mathematics and code, where incorrect candidates can be filtered reliably. This raises a natural question: can we similarly scale compute to elicit gains in truthfulness for domains without convenient verification? We show that across five benchmarks and models, surprisingly, it cannot. Even at 25x the inference cost of naive sampling, polling-style aggregation yields no consistent accuracy gains over single-sample baselines and often amplifies shared misconceptions. We find that under uncertainty, models are better at predicting what other models will say within model ensembles than at identifying what is true, revealing a separation between social prediction and truth verification. Across models and benchmarks, aggregation fails to provide a robust truth signal because language model errors are strongly correlated. The source of correlation goes beyond any individual benchmark: we show that even when conditioned on out of distribution random strings and asked to produce pseudo-random outputs, different models produce correlated outputs. Confidence-based weighting provides no benefit because self-reported confidence fails to reliably distinguish correct from incorrect answers. These results delineate a boundary for inference-time scaling: in verified domains, additional samples provide more candidates for a verifier to filter; in unverified domains, additional samples merely reinforce shared misconceptions.