Confidence estimation for large language models (LLMs) aims to estimate the probability that a generated answer is correct, while calibration aligns these estimates with empirical accuracy. Prior work has shown that token probabilities are often overconfident, we investigate whether these readily available signals can nevertheless provide well-calibrated confidence estimation for mathematical question answering. We compare single-pass estimators, which reuse token probabilities from the original generation, with multi-pass estimators, which obtain additional confidence signals through verification or stochastic forward passes. While individual token probabilities can be highly saturated, we find that aggregating token probabilities over the full sequence captures small but consistent differences between correct and incorrect generations, yielding more informative confidence estimates. Multi-pass methods can yield calibrated confidence estimates. We study two such approaches: self-verification through re-prompting, including a lower-cost in-situ variant, and Monte Carlo Dropout, which derives confidence from variation across stochastic forward passes. We further evaluate two post-hoc calibration methods, Platt scaling and isotonic regression, both of which substantially reduce in-domain calibration error. However, their data efficiency varies with dataset difficulty, and the calibration mappings often transfer asymmetrically across datasets and models.
Reasoning language models are increasingly asked not only to answer difficult questions, but also to estimate their likelihood of success. Existing methods typically elicit confidence only once: either before thinking or after answering. We argue that confidence in reasoning models is state-dependent: before thinking, confidence should estimate the chance of the model correctly solving the prompt, while after thinking it should predict whether the realized answer is likely to be correct. This distinction determines the appropriate supervision target: prompt-level success should supervise confidence estimates made after seeing the prompt, while individual answer-level correctness should supervise confidence estimates made after answering. We introduce CALIBER (Calibration Before and After Reasoning), which elicits both estimates and supervises each with the target matched to its information state. Under this unified protocol, CALIBER reduces Expected Calibration Error (ECE) by 52.5% over the strongest single-confidence baseline on BigMathDigits for the 7B model, while achieving the best Brier score and AUROC, and remains within 2.1 points of the best accuracy. Further, on a larger 30B model, CALIBER achieves the best ECE on BigMathDigits while remaining competitive in Brier score and AUROC. Out of distribution, it achieves the best ECE and Brier score on GPQA and TriviaQA, and remains competitive on SimpleQA. Ablations further show that this position-target alignment is most beneficial under distribution shift where it consistently reduces calibration error across all out-of-distribution benchmarks.
Large language models often express high confidence in answers that are wrong. Standard calibration remedies typically act globally or at the score level, reducing unwarranted confidence but also risking erosion of warranted confidence on correct answers. We introduce Probe-Conditioned Head Intervention (PCHI), an inference-time method that uses a frozen probe to detect likely wrong-but-confident responses and conditionally rescales downstream attention-head outputs during confidence generation. On Qwen3-4B-Instruct solving OpenMathInstruct problems with a structured binary confidence field, readout-token PCHI converts 82.2% of originally wrong-yes confidence readouts to no, while a joint intervention across upstream confidence-template tokens reduces ECE from 21.9% to 9.2% and damages only 5.1% of originally correct-yes readouts. The readout-token effect also appears on Gemma3-4B, though upstream interventions are weaker and more mask-dependent. These results show that verbalized overconfidence can be selectively reduced through conditionally applied internal intervention, partially decoupling the suppression of unwarranted confidence from the loss of warranted confidence.
LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence. These signals are sometimes treated as direct readouts of model uncertainty, but their comparison depends on measurement choices that are rarely made explicit. In the main analysis, we hold the verbalized-confidence elicitation fixed: a single prompt template, probability scale, and output format. We then vary the measurement axes that define the verbalized-vs-token comparison: which answer string receives the token-probability score, how that score is read from the answer tokens, and under which conditioning context it is measured. We evaluate this design on four QA benchmarks across three open 7--8B base/Instruct model families, with larger Qwen2.5 variants as same-family robustness checks. The resulting comparison is sensitive to these choices: conditioning context changes the sign or magnitude of the ECE gap across settings, token readout produces smaller but still sign-moving changes, and changing the ECE estimator has little effect. Under the default generated-answer, bare-context protocol, Instruct settings are close to parity rather than showing a large calibration gain for verbalized confidence. In a separate supplied-answer analysis, surface-plausible wrong answers receive nearly the same confidence as supplied gold answers, suggesting that verbalized confidence also reflects answer plausibility and provenance rather than correctness alone. We argue that both confidence signals should be treated as protocol-dependent behavioral measurements, and provide a reporting checklist covering elicitation provenance, scored answer, token-probability readout, and conditioning context.