Large-Language Models (LLMs) can be prone to flawed and unfaithful reasoning that decoding strategies like Self-Consistency (SC) fail to detect as they evaluate only final-answer agreement while ignoring the logical validity of intermediate steps. This raises three fundamental questions: How can we reliably quantify uncertainty in LLM reasoning? Can semantic, structural, and causal awareness select more faithful reasoning compared to naïve majority voting? and How robust is reasoning topology under adversarial conditions? To address these questions, we introduce GRAPHEVAL, a graph-based reasoning framework that re-frames uncertainty quantification (UQ) as a holistic reasoning fidelity problem. We propose a novel UQ metric, Graph Reasoning Coherence Score (GRCS), that quantifies semantic-structural consensus of the reasoning space and captures pathological mode collapse and confident hallucinations. We find that GRCS is the only metric that is consistently negatively correlated with reasoning faithfulness across both more capable and smaller models. Additionally, we introduce Graph Self-Consistency (GSC), a medoid-based decoding strategy that trades nominal accuracy for reasoning fidelity, exposing the degree to which SC is inflated by unfaithful lucky guesses in smaller models, while preserving or improving accuracy in more capable ones. Finally, through adversarial medoid ablation, we demonstrate that the GSC-selected path acts as a "load-bearing path" and forcing models away from it degrades reasoning faithfulness and, in targeted cases, causes drops in accuracy.
Large Language Models often produce confidently stated yet unreliable outputs, posing critical challenges for deployment in safety-sensitive applications. Existing uncertainty metrics such as semantic entropy capture agreement at the level of semantic equivalence, but largely ignore the logical relationships between distinct answers. As a result, they tend to overestimate uncertainty and falsely flag hallucinations in settings where generated responses are diverse in form yet logically compatible (e.g., differing only in granularity or specificity). We propose Logical Graph Uncertainty (LGU), a framework that explicitly models implication and incompatibility among answers. LGU aggregates probability mass along entailment chains onto the most specific hypotheses the answers support, measures the entropy of the resulting distribution, and penalizes mutual incompatibility among those hypotheses. Across multiple question-answering benchmarks and model families, LGU ranks first on average among existing uncertainty measures, with its largest gains---up to +7.1% AUROC and +3.5% AUARC over semantic entropy---on questions whose sampled answers are logically structured.
Large language models can arrive at the same answer through reasoning paths that are unstable, contradictory, or difficult to rank consistently -- a failure mode especially prevalent in multi-step deductive reasoning. Existing methods assess reliability primarily through output dispersion -- measuring how much sampled answers differ -- but this discards a complementary signal: whether the model can consistently rank competing reasoning candidates. We propose structural uncertainty, a consistency-aware framework derived from the stability of self-preference-induced rankings over sampled reasoning solutions. Given a query, we generate multiple candidate solutions and ask the model to judge pairwise preferences among its own outputs. We aggregate self-preferences into ranking distributions via Bradley-Terry modeling with PageRank, and decompose the signal into two entropy-based components: across-trial ranking instability and within-trial candidate ambiguity. Across five LLMs and eight benchmarks, structural signals provide information complementary to answer dispersion: on logical and mathematical reasoning tasks, the combination improves identification of unreliable instances, while on factual retrieval the structural signal collapses toward uniformity, diagnosing a regime boundary where reasoning-level consistency evaluation is uninformative. The two components relate differently to accuracy: within-trial ambiguity correlates positively with correctness -- consistent with settings where multiple plausible solution paths remain competitive -- while across-trial instability correlates negatively, signaling unreliable reasoning. Structural uncertainty is best understood not as a universal confidence estimator, but as a regime-sensitive evaluator of logical reasoning consistency.
Baishali Chaudhury, Mengdie Flora Wang, Hyunji Hayley Park +3
Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score c(φ)=p(φ)+p(¬φ) quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a \textbf{deterministic elicitation protocol} via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction (E[vneg]=0.025) but only 7.4% coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches 79.4% coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 (ρ=0.97). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.