Disentangling Question, Response, and Verifier Languages in Multilingual P(True) Self-Evaluation

LLM evaluators (trained reward models and prompted LLM-as-a-Judge) are routinely validated via pairwise accuracy. In a multilingual setting, this operates under the premise that high pairwise accuracy implies reliable, language-neutral scoring. We show that this assumption does not hold. We conduct experiments with semantically identical instruction-response pairs across 23 languages, and find that multilingual evaluators assign significantly different scores to different evaluation languages. The bias is statistically significant and consistent across eight open-weight evaluators of different architectures and training paradigms, persists in frontier judges, and is strongly correlated with language resource level: lower-resource languages are scored more generously. Meanwhile, these biases are invisible to pairwise accuracy: evaluators achieve above 90% pairwise accuracy, yet have up to 43% difference in acceptance rate across languages under a global decision threshold, meaning, for instance, that harmful content in lower-resource languages is more likely to pass safety filters. Per-language thresholds would require language identification, which can be defeated by code-switched prompts. We then investigate why lower-resource languages receive higher rather than lower scores, and we find that model uncertainty is linked with the effect: models tend to give higher scores when less confident, both under negative log-likelihood and under token-free uncertainty measures; however, language identity remains a significant predictor after controlling for uncertainty, and the bias cannot be explained away by content difficulty alone, but is a structural, language-level misalignment.

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.

Same-model self-verification, prompting a model to audit its own predicted answer, is a plausible confidence signal for selective prediction, but its practical value remains unclear once strong likelihood-based baselines are taken seriously. We evaluate self-verification against two such baselines, LL-AVG and LL-SUM, on ARC-Challenge and TruthfulQA-MC across multiple model families, scales, and prompt variants. We measure not only correctness ranking, but also abstention quality through AURC and operating-point analyses. The results are sharply task- and model-dependent. On ARC-Challenge, self-verification substantially improves over LL-AVG for Phi-2 and the Qwen models, with the largest gains appearing in Qwen-7B. On TruthfulQA-MC, however, the signal is less reliable: smaller models can become prompt-sensitive, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-8B degrades relative to LL-AVG, and LL-SUM often remains the stronger practical baseline. We therefore do not treat self-verification as a general-purpose uncertainty estimator. In this setting, it is better understood as a conditional confidence signal whose value depends on task type, model family, prompt formulation, and, crucially, the baseline it must beat.