Is Token Confidence Just Chain Length? A Signal-Processing Audit of Reasoning Traces

Long chains of thought (CoT) from current language models frequently contain logical gaps and unjustified leaps, limiting the gains from additional test-time compute. Improving reasoning quality directly would require process reward models, but the step-level annotations needed to train them are expensive and scarce. We find such a signal in how the model's confidence evolves during reasoning: premature confidence, the tendency to commit to an answer early and use the remaining tokens to rationalize it, strongly predicts flawed reasoning across tasks and model scales. We exploit this in progressive confidence shaping, a reinforcement learning objective that trains models to update their confidence as they reason rather than commit early -- rewarding gradual confidence growth and penalizing early commitment, with no external labels or reward models. The method improves accuracy and reasoning quality from 1.5B to 8B parameters across arithmetic (Countdown), math (DAPO, AIME), and science (ScienceQA): on Countdown, accuracy improves 3.2x (+42.0pp) and flawed reasoning drops 48pp; on AIME, Pass@64 improves 6.6pp. Consistent with this mechanism, the method also improves faithfulness: on a safety benchmark, our models more transparently surface misleading content in their reasoning traces rather than concealing it. Controlled experiments reveal that the problem and its remedy scale together: premature confidence grows with model size and task difficulty, and so do the gains from addressing it.

Large language models have demonstrated remarkable progress in mathematical reasoning, leveraging chain-of-thought and reinforcement learning. However, many open questions remain regarding the interplay between reasoning token usage and accuracy gains. In particular, when comparing models across generations, it is unclear whether improved performance results from longer reasoning chains or more efficient reasoning. We systematically analyze reasoning chain length across o1-mini and o3-mini variants on the Omni-MATH benchmark, finding that o3-mini (m) achieves superior accuracy without requiring longer reasoning chains than o1-mini. Moreover, we show that accuracy generally declines as reasoning chains grow across all models and compute settings, even when controlling for difficulty of the questions. This accuracy drop is significantly smaller in more proficient models, suggesting that new generations of reasoning models use test-time compute more effectively. Finally, we highlight that while o3-mini (h) achieves a marginal accuracy gain over o3-mini (m), it does so by allocating substantially more reasoning tokens across all problems, even the ones that o3-mini (m) can already solve. These findings provide new insights into the relationship between model capability and reasoning length, with implications for efficiency, scaling, and evaluation methodologies.

Reasoning models often generate very long reasoning traces, making inference computationally expensive. Existing approaches typically improve efficiency either through inference-time early-stopping mechanisms or by explicitly encouraging shorter reasoning during training, for example through reinforcement learning with length penalties. We show that substantial efficiency gains can instead emerge from a different kind of supervision: confidence. Using a self-supervised procedure, we fine-tune reasoning models to predict their confidence in the answer at intermediate points along their own reasoning trajectories using only 600 training problems. Confidence is used only as a training target: the loss contains no objective for reasoning length, efficiency, or stopping. At inference, the fine-tuned models use the standard generation procedure, with no confidence elicitation or early-stopping mechanism. Despite this, self-supervised confidence fine-tuning makes reasoning more efficient, reducing generated tokens by up to 25% at matched accuracy across Gemma, Qwen, Nemotron, and GPT-OSS models on mathematical, scientific, and coding reasoning benchmarks, with efficiency gains comparable to methods that explicitly optimize for shorter reasoning. Analysis of reasoning episodes further shows that confidence supervision largely preserves the base models' high-level reasoning composition rather than selectively suppressing particular behaviors. Our results suggest that efficient reasoning may emerge as a downstream consequence of learning metacognitive signals, without being directly optimized.