Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used within everyday applications where their responses have significant downstream impacts. For responsible deployment of such systems, we desire insight into how much we can trust their individual outputs. A popular approach for estimating LLM confidence is to train probes on the hidden states of the LLM's tokens to predict the correctness of the model's output. These probes typically read hidden states from tokens that are already in the model's vocabulary. In this work, we introduce a new approach to confidence probes that learn a new readout token and utilize its hidden states to train the probe. We show that our learned readout approach ScratchProbe outperforms its existing-token counterpart on a variety of datasets and LLMs. We also extend our method to a multi-token approach which we show provides further performance improvements. Finally, since the learned readout changes only the position a probe reads from, any existing probe can adopt it. Applied to a state-of-the-art probe, it improves AUROC on every backbone, in domain and out of domain.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) The standard last-token probe from prior work and (b) ScratchProbe . Both use the same frozen LLM and MLP probe; only the probed position differs.
Llama-3.2-3B
Llama-3.1-8B
Phi-4-mini (3.8B)
Method
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
Seq. likelihood
0.816
0.688
0.829
0.698
0.771
0.658
P(True)
0.727
0.594
0.719
0.608
0.783
0.714
Verbalized conf.
0.744
0.613
0.714
0.645
0.553
0.588
Self-consistency ( k=10 )
0.873
0.737
0.873
0.745
0.835
0.734
Semantic entropy ( k=10 )
0.840
0.723
0.844
0.730
0.806
0.718
Table 1: Macro-average AUROC ( ↑ ) of ScratchProbe and baselines on three frozen instruction-tuned backbones. Bold marks the best and underline marks the second-best value in each column. Per-dataset results appear in Tables S1 – S3 of the technical supplement.
Llama-3.2-3B
Llama-3.1-8B
Phi-4-mini (3.8B)
Method
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
Seq. likelihood
0.093
0.261
0.073
0.267
0.140
0.288
P(True)
0.378
0.298
0.221
0.369
0.149
0.207
Verbalized conf.
0.107
0.183
0.098
0.308
0.278
0.407
Self-consistency ( k=10 )
0.072
0.151
0.064
0.154
0.071
0.161
Semantic entropy ( k=10 )
0.123
0.120
0.105
0.122
0.124
0.134
Table 2: Macro-average ECE ( ↓ , 15 equal-mass bins). Bold marks the best and underline marks the second-best value in each column. Per-dataset results appear in Tables S4 – S6 of the technical supplement.
Input-Output Example
Question: Divided government frequently results in: A) reapportionment of voting districts; B) amendments to the Constitution; C) conflict between states and the federal government; D) delays in the confirmation of those nominated to be ambassadors.
Model Answer: C Ground Truth: D Grader: Incorrect
Probe
Confidence
Last-token
0.81
ScratchProbe ( n=8 )
0.17
Table 3: Input and output example. The last-token probe is confident in a wrong answer; ScratchProbe is not.
Figure 2: Macro AUROC on Phi-4-mini against n . The dashed line is the last-token probe.
Figure 3: Macro ECE on Phi-4-mini against n . The dashed line is the last-token probe.
AUROC ( ↑ )
ECE ( ↓ )
Llama-3.2-3B
Llama-3.1-8B
Phi-4-mini
Llama-3.2-3B
Llama-3.1-8B
Phi-4-mini
Probe
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
ID
OOD
I 2 (last answer token)
0.872
0.723
0.895
0.730
0.927
0.714
0.065
0.157
0.043
0.130
0.037
0.146
I 2 + ScratchProbe tokens ( n=8 )
0.900
0.754
0.906
0.742
0.935
0.757
0.055
0.137
0.039
0.112
0.045
0.173
Table 4: Macro-average AUROC ( ↑ ) and ECE ( ↓ ) of I 2 with its original last-token readout compared against its ScratchProbe variant.
Figure 4: Selective accuracy against coverage on Phi-4-mini. At each coverage threshold, the most confident fraction of answers is kept and the accuracy of the kept set is reported.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
In-domain
Out-of-domain
Macro avg.
Method
TriviaQA
SciQ
GSM8K
MMLU
TruthfulQA
CSQA
MATH-500
ID
OOD
Seq. likelihood
0.839
0.893
0.716
0.750
0.704
0.759
0.537
0.816
0.688
P(True)
0.800
0.670
0.712
0.537
0.575
0.586
0.677
0.727
0.594
Verbalized conf.
0.799
0.760
0.672
0.604
0.581
0.563
0.704
0.744
0.613
Self-consistency ( k=10 )
0.862
0.796
0.962
0.722
0.606
0.719
0.900
0.873
0.737
Semantic entropy ( k=10 )
0.860
0.794
0.867
0.717
0.632
0.718
0.825
0.840
0.723
Appendix
Table S1: AUROC ( ↑ ) on Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, per dataset. Probe rows report mean ± std over three training seeds. Sequence likelihood, P(True), and verbalized confidence are averaged over the same three seeds and have negligible spread. Self-consistency and semantic entropy use k=10 samples per question in a single run. Bold marks the best and underline the second-best value in each column.
In-domain
Out-of-domain
Macro avg.
Method
TriviaQA
SciQ
GSM8K
MMLU
TruthfulQA
CSQA
MATH-500
ID
OOD
Seq. likelihood
0.862
0.903
0.721
0.784
0.660
0.760
0.588
0.829
0.698
P(True)
0.854
0.569
0.734
0.560
0.525
0.569
0.778
0.719
0.608
Verbalized conf.
0.788
0.762
0.591
0.651
0.561
0.648
0.717
0.714
0.645
Self-consistency ( k=10 )
0.881
0.800
0.940
0.766
0.621
0.695
0.899
0.873
0.745
Semantic entropy ( k=10 )
0.878
0.799
0.855
0.760
0.643
0.694
0.824
0.844
0.730
Appendix
Table S2: AUROC ( ↑ ) on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, per dataset. Probe rows report mean ± std over three training seeds. Sequence likelihood, P(True), and verbalized confidence are averaged over the same three seeds and have negligible spread. Self-consistency and semantic entropy use k=10 samples per question in a single run. Bold marks the best and underline the second-best value in each column.
In-domain
Out-of-domain
Macro avg.
Method
TriviaQA
SciQ
GSM8K
MMLU
TruthfulQA
CSQA
MATH-500
ID
OOD
Seq. likelihood
0.844
0.820
0.651
0.684
0.665
0.737
0.545
0.771
0.658
P(True)
0.844
0.891
0.614
0.687
0.685
0.682
0.802
0.783
0.714
Verbalized conf.
0.566
0.583
0.510
0.545
0.644
0.507
0.657
0.553
0.588
Self-consistency ( k=10 )
0.854
0.796
0.856
0.709
0.602
0.732
0.893
0.835
0.734
Semantic entropy ( k=10 )
0.853
0.791
0.774
0.706
0.643
0.727
0.798
0.806
0.718
Appendix
Table S3: AUROC ( ↑ ) on Phi-4-mini-instruct (3.8B), per dataset. Probe rows report mean ± std over three training seeds. Sequence likelihood, P(True), and verbalized confidence are averaged over the same three seeds and have negligible spread. Self-consistency and semantic entropy use k=10 samples per question in a single run. Bold marks the best and underline the second-best value in each column.
In-domain
Out-of-domain
Macro avg.
Method
TriviaQA
SciQ
GSM8K
MMLU
TruthfulQA
CSQA
MATH-500
ID
OOD
Seq. likelihood
0.147
0.038
0.095
0.100
0.365
0.110
0.468
0.093
0.261
P(True)
0.167
0.407
0.560
0.337
0.267
0.350
0.239
0.378
0.298
Verbalized conf.
0.134
0.158
0.031
0.082
0.302
0.094
0.255
0.107
0.183
Self-consistency ( k=10 )
0.063
0.043
0.110
0.125
0.252
0.138
0.089
0.072
0.151
Semantic entropy ( k=10 )
0.118
0.063
0.188
0.069
0.189
0.099
0.125
0.123
0.120
Appendix
Table S4: ECE ( ↓ ) on Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, per dataset. ECE uses 15 equal-mass bins. Probe rows report mean ± std over three training seeds. Sequence likelihood, P(True), and verbalized confidence are averaged over the same three seeds and have negligible spread. Self-consistency and semantic entropy use k=10 samples per question in a single run. Bold marks the best and underline the second-best value in each column.
In-domain
Out-of-domain
Macro avg.
Method
TriviaQA
SciQ
GSM8K
MMLU
TruthfulQA
CSQA
MATH-500
ID
OOD
Seq. likelihood
0.115
0.042
0.062
0.116
0.366
0.140
0.448
0.073
0.267
P(True)
0.157
0.378
0.128
0.277
0.439
0.272
0.489
0.221
0.369
Verbalized conf.
0.168
0.033
0.093
0.207
0.459
0.099
0.466
0.098
0.308
Self-consistency ( k=10 )
0.047
0.053
0.092
0.137
0.241
0.161
0.077
0.064
0.154
Semantic entropy ( k=10 )
0.118
0.036
0.162
0.087
0.173
0.123
0.103
0.105
0.122
Appendix
Table S5: ECE ( ↓ ) on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, per dataset. ECE uses 15 equal-mass bins. Probe rows report mean ± std over three training seeds. Sequence likelihood, P(True), and verbalized confidence are averaged over the same three seeds and have negligible spread. Self-consistency and semantic entropy use k=10 samples per question in a single run. Bold marks the best and underline the second-best value in each column.
In-domain
Out-of-domain
Macro avg.
Method
TriviaQA
SciQ
GSM8K
MMLU
TruthfulQA
CSQA
MATH-500
ID
OOD
Seq. likelihood
0.200
0.095
0.124
0.300
0.278
0.190
0.384
0.140
0.288
P(True)
0.178
0.047
0.221
0.157
0.351
0.109
0.210
0.149
0.207
Verbalized conf.
0.447
0.115
0.272
0.329
0.565
0.279
0.454
0.278
0.407
Self-consistency ( k=10 )
0.064
0.064
0.086
0.172
0.236
0.110
0.125
0.071
0.161
Semantic entropy ( k=10 )
0.115
0.054
0.203
0.114
0.174
0.085
0.163
0.124
0.134
Appendix
Table S6: ECE ( ↓ ) on Phi-4-mini-instruct (3.8B), per dataset. ECE uses 15 equal-mass bins. Probe rows report mean ± std over three training seeds. Sequence likelihood, P(True), and verbalized confidence are averaged over the same three seeds and have negligible spread. Self-consistency and semantic entropy use k=10 samples per question in a single run. Bold marks the best and underline the second-best value in each column.
In-domain
Out-of-domain
Macro avg.
Probe
TriviaQA
SciQ
GSM8K
MMLU
TruthfulQA
CSQA
MATH-500
ID
OOD
AUROC ( ↑ )
Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
I 2 (last answer token)
0.893 ± 0.002
0.886 ± 0.011
0.837 ± 0.006
0.737 ± 0.008
0.603 ± 0.013
0.725 ± 0.016
0.828 ± 0.020
0.872 ± 0.002
0.723 ± 0.003
I 2 + ScratchProbe tokens ( n=8 )
0.902
0.907
0.891
0.749
0.627
0.764
0.877
0.900
0.754
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
Appendix
Table S7: Per-dataset AUROC ( ↑ ) and ECE ( ↓ ) of I 2 with its original last-answer-token readout and of the ScratchProbe variant that reads from <CONF> after eight jointly trained scratch tokens. The I 2 rows report mean ± std over three encoder seeds. The ScratchProbe variant rows are from a single seed (42). Bold marks the better of the two rows in each column.
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.
Ke Li, Chongzhe Zhang, Zifan Zeng +3
Huawei Heisenberg Research Center · EPFL · TU Berlin +1
Verbal confidence -- prompting LLMs to state their confidence as a number or category -- is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from black-box models. However, how LLMs internally generate such scores remains unknown. We address two questions: first, when confidence is computed -- just-in-time when requested, or automatically during answer generation and cached for later retrieval; and second, what verbal confidence represents -- token log-probabilities, or a richer evaluation of answer quality? Focusing on Gemma 3 27B (across TriviaQA, BigMath, and MMLU), Qwen 2.5 7B, and the reasoning model Magistral Small 24B, we provide convergent evidence for cached retrieval. Activation steering, patching, noising, and swap experiments reveal that confidence representations emerge at answer-adjacent positions before appearing at the verbalization site. Attention blocking pinpoints the information flow: confidence is gathered from answer tokens, cached at the first post-answer position, then retrieved for output. Critically, linear probing and variance partitioning reveal that these cached representations explain substantial variance in verbal confidence beyond token log-probabilities, suggesting a richer answer-quality evaluation rather than a simple fluency readout. These findings demonstrate that verbal confidence reflects automatic, sophisticated self-evaluation -- not post-hoc reconstruction -- with implications for understanding metacognition in LLMs and improving calibration.
Dharshan Kumaran, Arthur Conmy, Federico Barbero +3
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in critical decision-making systems, the lack of reliable methods to measure their uncertainty presents a fundamental trustworthiness risk. We introduce a normalized confidence score based on output anchor token probabilities: classification labels for structured tasks and self-evaluation responses (Yes/No) for open-ended generation. This enables direct detection of errors and hallucinations with minimal overhead and without external validation. We make three key contributions. First, we propose a normalized confidence score and self-evaluation framework that exposes reliable confidence estimates for error detection across seven diverse benchmark tasks and five LLMs of varying architectures and sizes. Second, our theoretical analysis reveals that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) yields well-calibrated confidence through maximum-likelihood estimation, whereas reinforcement learning methods (PPO, GRPO) and DPO induce overconfidence via reward exploitation. Third, we propose post-RL SFT with self-distillation to restore confidence reliability in RL-trained models. Empirical results demonstrated that SFT improved average confidence-correctness AUROC from 0.806 to 0.879 and reduced calibration error from 0.163 to 0.034 on Qwen3-4B, while GRPO and DPO degraded confidence reliability. We demonstrated practical value through adaptive retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that selectively retrieves context when the model lacks confidence, using only 58% of retrieval operations to recover 95% of the maximum achievable accuracy gain on TriviaQA