Scored vs. Generated Readouts in Behavioral Language Models: An Empirical Study of Elicitation Format

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.

Speech language models are increasingly evaluated on paralinguistic tasks by the accuracy of prompted answers, but answer accuracy combines failures at different stages of the audio-to-answer computation. We introduce a generation-aligned diagnostic ladder that compares the emitted answer, the option logits, an affine readout of those logits, and a linear readout of the hidden state at the same answer token. Successive differences separate endpoint, decision-rule, and readout-coverage gaps. Across five systems and two emotion corpora, state decoding exceeds generation by 27.8 accuracy points on average, and both the decision-rule and readout-coverage gaps are positive in all ten conditions. A label-free logit correction improves generated accuracy in every condition, showing that part of the decision-rule gap is actionable. In rank-matched comparisons, emotion information outside the native readout generalizes to held-out speakers and survives controls for measured acoustic descriptors, but replacing the selected readout-external directions usually has little effect on emitted answers. These results distinguish information availability from behavioral use and localize performance losses across the decision rule and the state-to-answer readout.

Natural-language explanations are often treated as a unified interface for understanding model behavior, but different explanation sources may support simulation in different ways. This paper compares two families of explanations for question answering models: verbalized feature attributions and self-generated rationales. We evaluate them under a shared counterfactual simulation setting, using an LLM judge as predictor and measuring whether it can better predict a model's answers to follow-up questions when given its explanation. Across multiple instruction-tuned models, we analyze how explanation source, verbalization strategy, and feature granularity affect the simulatability of explanations. Our results show that explanation format and granularity affect simulatability: attribution-based explanations and self-generated rationales differ in how much they improve counterfactual prediction, with effects that vary across models and formats.