Verbalized Confidence Estimation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Latest papers

25 papers1 paper in the last four weeks, down 80% on the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Oct 19, 2026

Measurement Validity and Representation Dynamics of Confidence Signals in Large Language Models

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.

Debojeet Ghosh, Shreyansh Kumar, Ayushman Garg

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration Verbalized Confidence Estimation Language Model Probing Semantic Entropy

Sep 28, 2026

When Words Fall Short: Iterative Synergy Between Verbalized Reasoning and Hidden Features for LLM Confidence Estimation

Confidence estimation is crucial for developing trustworthy large language models (LLMs), with most methods following estimator-based or verbalization-based paradigms. While recent research increasingly focuses on improving verbalized self-reports of confidence, we challenge the prevailing view that this approach surpasses independent confidence estimators. Our empirical study shows that a dedicated confidence estimator can substantially outperform verbalized confidence, indicating that LLMs' internal representations contain richer confidence signals. Building on this finding, we propose Iterative Policy-Estimator Training (IPoET), a framework that synergizes the complementary strengths of verbalized reasoning traces and informative representations. IPoET alternates policy optimization with estimator updating, integrating estimator-derived confidence feedback into policy learning and refreshing the estimator on new policy rollouts. Experiments across diverse datasets and Qwen and Llama backbones demonstrate that, by iteratively exploiting richer hidden features and adapting to the evolving policy distribution, IPoET consistently outperforms both estimator- and verbalization-based baselines in-domain and achieves superior or comparable results across all out-of-domain metrics. For more details, refer to https://github.com/xyk829/ipoet.

Yekun Xu, Ante Wang, Jingyi Ren +3

College of AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Tech., Institute for AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Confidence Estimation in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation

Sep 17, 2026

An Analysis of Training-Free Self-Reported Confidence in Language Models

Large language models can report a numerical confidence together with generated content, but it is unclear whether this report is more than calibrated rhetoric. We analyze three training-free signals: confidence verbalized with the answer, post-hoc

P(\mathrm{True})

, and agreement with three additional generations on the same 100 TriviaQA questions for two model families. Direct verbalization is a surprisingly strong baseline: after auditing benchmark errors, it reaches AUROC 0.956 and 0.937 for correctness prediction. Three-sample agreement is substantially weaker (0.765 and 0.790), and a fixed interpolation with verbalized confidence has no statistically reliable benefit. Four of nine errors from one model and two of eight from the other receive unanimous sample support, showing that self-consistency can amplify shared misconceptions. Re-eliciting confidence for the same fixed answers with equivalent prompts changes scores by 0.043 to 0.084 on average and flips 4% to 9% of decisions at a 0.8 threshold. An exploratory audit of 100 confidence-tagged biography claims further finds only a modest confidence gap between supported and contradicted claims. These results argue that useful self-reports remain sensitive to elicitation, correlated errors, and benchmark noise.

Lukas Meyer, Sofia Rossi, Wei Chen +2

DreamAI

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Self-Assessment LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Self-Consistency in Language Models Verbalized Confidence Estimation

Sep 16, 2026

The Mirage of Calibrated Confidence: Trajectory-Independence of Verbalized Confidence in Vision-Language Models

A calibrated Vision-Language Model (VLM) can repeatedly self-correct, say "Wait, I should recheck," arrive at the wrong answer, and still report high confidence. We find that this occurs because verbalized confidence is largely trajectory-independent in the VLMs and calibration methods we evaluate. We examine this through three complementary lenses: content variation, token masking, and the model's own hesitation markers. We show that confidence is insufficiently sensitive to what the reasoning trajectory actually contains, and that calibration training can paradoxically worsen this disconnect. Since existing metrics like ECE and AUROC cannot detect this problem, we propose the Trajectory-Grounding Score (TGS) in two complementary forms: TGS-self, which compares confidence with and without access to the model's own trajectory, and TGS-pair, which tests whether the model assigns higher confidence to correct trajectories than to flawed ones along the vision, reasoning, and answer axes. We propose TGS-Bench, a model-agnostic suite spanning 10 benchmarks with controlled good/bad trajectory pairs, and show that conventional calibration rankings diverge from trajectory-grounding rankings, exposing a blind spot in current evaluation practice.

Jisoo Yang, Jaeho Han, Trung X. Pham +1

Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chung-Ang University, Republic of Korea · Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

VLM Evaluation Confidence Estimation in Language Models VLM Reasoning VLM Calibration Confidence Estimation for VLMs Verbalized Confidence Estimation

Sep 10, 2026

Rethinking Verbalized Confidence for LLM-as-a-Judge: A Compatibility Shift on Post-2025 Proprietary Models

Verbalized confidence, long dismissed as overconfident, coarse, and prone to round-number clustering, is now the more robust soft-scoring mechanism for LLM-as-a-Judge on top-tier proprietary models. Across SummEval, AggreFact, and HelpSteer2, spanning up to 18 LLMs, we show that the standard advice to prefer log-probabilities no longer holds on post-2025 models, where verbalized confidence is the better signal. We call this a compatibility shift. On top of a standard verbalized-confidence baseline, we introduce two new ingredients: an overconfidence advisory and self-debate. Together they improve calibration, score-distribution spread, and robustness to task subjectivity. We further observe a generation effect: post-2025 models accommodate these two additions with little balanced-accuracy cost, whereas pre-2025 models pay a measurable penalty. Compared with logprob-based G-Eval, verbalized confidence is the more subjectivity-robust soft signal on GPT-family top-tier releases. The shift is invisible under accuracy-only reporting. Rather than defaulting to hard predictions, we recommend broader use of soft scoring in LLM-as-a-Judge. More broadly, verbalized confidence has moved from a weaker substitute for logprobs to a practical soft-scoring mechanism for contemporary LLM judges.

Yu-Chung Hsiao

Cisco Systems

Language Model Calibration LLM-as-a-Judge Confidence Estimation in Language Models LLM Evaluation Metacognition in Language Models Language Model Robustness+1

Sep 6, 2026

"very likely" Means "uncertain"? How LLMs Diverge from Humans in Linguistic Uncertainty Quantification

Humans express uncertainty verbally via markers (e.g., "possible," "likely"), yet most LLM uncertainty quantification (UQ) relies on costing likelihood- or consistency-based signals. From a cognitive perspective, accurate verbal uncertainty reflects metacognitive monitoring, representing knowledge boundaries ("knowing that you don't know") to support regulation and information seeking. In this paper, we investigate how LLMs diverge from humans in verbal uncertainty quantification and whether verbal markers can reliably quantify LLM uncertainty. We curate a corpus of human uncertainty markers from psychology and decision-science literature and benchmark LLMs against it. We observe that LLMs encode verbal uncertainty with numerical levels that differ substantially from those of humans. We then introduce METHODNAME, a novel optimization-based algorithm that learns an optimal uncertainty profile over uncertainty markers directly from LLM outputs. By fitting a marker-uncertainty mapping to best explain empirical correctness, METHODNAME discovers how much probability mass each verbal marker should convey, rather than estimating uncertainty via repeated sampling. METHODNAME enables a direct, marker-level comparison of confidence semantics between humans and LLMs, disentangling mismatch and revealing systematic confidence disparities in verbal expressions.

Jinhao Duan, Zicheng Liu, Zijie Liu +2

Department of Computer Science, UNC-Chapel Hill · Department of Mathematics, The University of Hong Kong · Department of Data Science, City University of Hong Kong

LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation Confidence Estimation in Language Models Uncertainty Calibration Metacognition in Language Models

Aug 28, 2026

When Linguistic and Internal Confidence Diverge in Large Language Models

Users often ask large language models (LLMs) to report how confident they are, but it is unclear whether such linguistic confidence tracks the model's internal confidence. We study this question across 8 classification tasks, 2 generation tasks and 30 models from three families. For classification, we compare linguistic confidence with logits-based confidence along three axes: association, magnitude agreement and calibration. For generation, we test whether linguistic confidence tracks semantic-entropy-based uncertainty. The axes frequently diverge. Instance-level association is weak on average, although it improves on easier items and for stronger base models. Instruction-tuned models often report higher confidence and sometimes show higher association, but they also have larger confidence gaps and worse calibration. Prompt design mostly changes the distribution of reported confidence. Attitude cues inflate confidence without improving alignment, while score exemplars can preserve rank-order signal when they avoid collapsed confidence values. Regression analyses show that distributional properties of confidence scores explain much of the observed alignment pattern, with model metadata playing a smaller role after controls. These results support a lossy-channel view of linguistic confidence. A more dispersed verbal confidence distribution can carry useful rank information, but it does not make the scores calibrated. Linguistic confidence should therefore be evaluated with multi-axis diagnostics before being used in downstream reliability pipelines.

Hefan Zhang, Bingquan Zhang, Ming Cheng +3

Dartmouth College · Oakland University

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Verbalized Confidence Estimation LLM Reliability LLM Evaluation

Aug 21, 2026

DirEAG: Dirichlet Evidence Aggregation for Calibrating Verbalized Confidence in Mathematical Reasoning

Reliable confidence estimation is essential for using large language models in mathematical reasoning, but black-box verbalized confidence is difficult to calibrate. When the same problem is queried under multiple confidence-steering prompts, the resulting answer-confidence observations contain useful uncertainty information, yet their scales may shift across steering levels, models, and datasets. Existing black-box uncertainty methods often rely on answer agreement, sample consistency, or entropy, which describe output variation but do not model the numerical meaning of self-reported confidence. Conversely, direct averaging or heuristic aggregation of elicited confidence cannot learn prompt- and task-dependent bias. We propose DirEAG, a Dirichlet Evidence Aggregation method that converts each elicited answer-confidence observation into calibrated soft evidence over generated candidate answers and an additional null state, allowing the model to represent cases where none of the candidates is correct. Experiments on GSM8K, SVAMP, and GSM-Hard with Qwen, Mistral, and Gemma models show that, compared with direct confidence averaging and heuristic confidence-steering aggregation, DirEAG often achieves better calibration while maintaining competitive answer selection. Ablations further reveal that evidence aggregation and final binary calibration address distinct parts of the calibration problem.

Haorui Xu, Yuzhou Zhu, Liyuan Gao

School of Mathematics, Jilin University, Changchun, China · Leicester International Institute, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Confidence Estimation Language Model Calibration Verbalized Confidence Estimation LLM Mathematical Reasoning

Aug 5, 2026

Evaluation Pitfalls and Sparsity Limitations in LLM-based Confidence Estimates for Classification

Confidence estimation is essential when LLMs are used for classification, indicating when predictions can be trusted. However, common approaches such as verbalization produce extremely sparse outputs. For instance, Qwen3-32B verbalizes only eight unique confidence values on SST-2, with over half being exactly 95%, a pattern we observe consistently across four datasets and two LLMs. Besides limiting practical utility, we show that this sparsity critically affects evaluation: the choice of interpolation in area under the accuracy-rejection curve (AUARC) dramatically alters rankings, with consistency sampling dropping from best to worst under stepwise versus linear interpolation. We advocate for standardizing stepwise interpolation for a fairer comparison. Under such a fair evaluation, we find that weighting verbalized digits by token probabilities, a method we term verbalization logprobs, addresses sparsity and achieves the best AUARC (+2.3 points over vanilla verbalization) without incurring additional inference cost.

Elena Merdjanovska, Omar Zaidan, Andreas Rücklé

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Science of Intelligence · Amazon

LLM Evaluation Selective Prediction Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation

Jun 28, 2026

Reported Confidence in LLMs Tracks Commitment More Than Correctness

Confidence is an estimate of the probability that a chosen answer is correct. Verbal confidence reports are widely used as uncertainty measures in large language models, but whether they are best understood as estimates of correctness is unclear. We test this with a two-stage abstention paradigm from the neuroscience of perceptual decision making: a model first answers and reports its confidence, then decides whether to commit it to a user or abstain. Across four non-reasoning models, prompt framings, and confidence formats, verbal confidence predicted the commit/abstain decision substantially better than whether the answer was correct. Calibrated token log-probabilities showed the opposite profile, with abstention-prediction coupled to correctness discrimination, the signature of an answer-evidence signal. After removing the variance verbal confidence shared with log-probabilities, the residual stayed aligned with commitment while its link to correctness fell to near chance. The dissociation generalised to four reasoning models across four benchmarks of varying difficulty, from hard multiple-choice to frontier-level freeform questions. Mechanistic analyses in Gemma 3 and 4 were convergent: a post-answer state known to causally support verbal-confidence generation already encoded the future abstention decision before the abstention prompt, organised mainly by that decision rather than by correctness, the two lying in approximately orthogonal directions in activation space. Steering along a verbal-confidence-specific direction causally shifted abstention. Verbal and log-probability confidence are thus not interchangeable: log-probabilities track answer evidence and correctness, whereas verbal confidence is better understood as a behaviour-facing readout of an internal commit-readiness state, challenging the practice of treating verbal reports as proxies for reliability.

Dharshan Kumaran

Google DeepMind

LLM Uncertainty Estimation LLM Interpretability Metacognition in Language Models LLM Abstention Confidence Estimation in Language Models Verbalized Confidence Estimation+1

Jun 23, 2026

CALIBER: Calibrating Confidence Before and After Reasoning in Language 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.

Conor Finlay, Joshua Kurien, Saurabh Dash +2

1Cohere Labs

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Uncertainty Estimation Large Reasoning Models Confidence Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation

Jun 15, 2026

Speaking in Self-Assessing Tongues: On the Verbalized Confidence of LLMs in Machine Translation

The rapid rise in popularity of large language models (LLMs) for translation calls for a thorough study of the reliability of their confidence in their own outputs. Unlike many generation tasks, translation errors and confidence levels can be useful at different levels of granularity (tokens, words, or spans). Unsupervised approaches based on internal signals like predicted probabilities can be misleading because they reflect certainty among alternatives rather than correctness. In addition, they require access to such internal signals. Here, we devise five verbalized methods of extracting an LLM's per-token confidence without those shortcomings and compare their reliability with that of the model's internal signals of certainty. We evaluate reliability using two forms of alignment: fine-grained error detection and calibration. For both, internal and verbalized methods perform similarly, although results vary by model. Interestingly, we find little to no correlation between internal and verbalized methods.

Ali Marashian, Alexis Palmer, Katharina von der Wense

University of Colorado Boulder, USA · Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation MT Evaluation

Jun 2, 2026

Calibrating Overconfidence Without Sacrificing Confidence: Probe-Conditioned Head Intervention for LLMs

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

\texttt{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

LLM Reliability Causal Interventions in Language Models Language Model Calibration Confidence Estimation in Language Models LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation+1

Jun 2, 2026

Quantifying Faithful Confidence Expression in Large Reasoning Models

Reliable uncertainty communication is critical to the trustworthiness of LLMs, yet faithful calibration (FC)--the alignment between models' intrinsic and (linguistically) expressed confidence--is a persistent failure mode. This challenge is key for large reasoning models (LRMs), whose extended reasoning traces are often interpreted by users as evidence of deliberation, competence, and confidence. Despite the importance of FC and wide usage of LRMs, the extent to which LRMs can faithfully express their confidence remains poorly understood. Moreover, the prevailing paradigm to measure FC does not generalize well to the long chain-of-thought outputs generated by LRMs, which tend to lack clear step boundaries, involve inconsistent step structure, and encode complex conditional dependencies throughout the trace--complicating estimation of intrinsic confidence. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel framework to systematically quantify FC of LRMs. Our framework analyzes linguistic decisiveness relative to three sources of internal uncertainty, based on token probabilities, hidden states, and sampled response consistency. We also devise a prefix-conditioned sampling approach to control for conditional and structural variation across traces. Applying our framework to a diverse suite of leading models, datasets, and prompts, we find that faithful confidence expression is a significant challenge for LRMs. Reasoning behaviors do not automatically translate to improved FC, and prompt interventions for non-reasoning models do not improve faithfulness in the reasoning setting. Different confidence estimators further produce divergent assessments of the same traces, revealing fragility in prior evaluation methodologies. Taken together, our work establishes FC as a distinct reliability and alignment target for LRMs, particularly as such systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes contexts.

Areeb Gani, Asal Meskin, Gabrielle Kaili-May Liu +1

1Yale University

Large Reasoning Models Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation LLM Evaluation+2

May 26, 2026

Asking Is Not Enough: Protocol Sensitivity in LLM Confidence Calibration

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.

Hankyeol Kim, Pilsung Kang

Seoul National University

LLM Evaluation Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation

May 19, 2026

Retrieval-Augmented Linguistic Calibration

Linguistic cues such as "I believe" and "probably" offer an intuitive interface for communicating confidence, yet a generalisable, principled calibration framework for linguistic confidence expressions remains underexplored. In particular, co-occurring linguistic cues, contextual variation, and subjective audience interpretation pose unique challenges. We therefore model linguistic confidence as a distribution over plausible perceived probability values that a statement is correct, capturing interpretation variability that scalar representations discard. Within this distributional framework, we introduce faithfulness as a complementary evaluation dimension and present Faithfulness Divergence (FD), an information-theoretic metric quantifying the surprise induced in audience beliefs upon truth revelation. Building on these foundations, we present Retrieval-Augmented Linguistic Calibration (RALC), a lightweight post-hoc pipeline that propagates calibrated confidence signals back into natural language via retrieval-augmented rewriting. Across three QA benchmarks and five LLM families, RALC improves in-domain faithfulness and calibration up to 66% and 58%, respectively, outperforming black-box and grey-box calibration baselines.

Yi-Fan Yeh, Linwei Tao, Minjing Dong +4

School of Computer Science University of Sydney Sydney, Australia · City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong · Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China +1

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Faithfulness of Language Model Reasoning Language Model Calibration LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation Confidence Estimation

May 12, 2026

ORCE: Order-Aware Alignment of Verbalized Confidence in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) often produce answers with high certainty even when they are incorrect, making reliable confidence estimation essential for deployment in real-world scenarios. Verbalized confidence, where models explicitly state their confidence in natural language, provides a flexible and user-facing uncertainty signal that can be applied even when token logits are unavailable. However, existing verbalized-confidence methods often optimize answer generation and confidence generation jointly, which can cause confidence-alignment objectives to interfere with answer accuracy. In this work, we propose a decoupled and order-aware framework for verbalized confidence calibration. Our method first generates an answer and then estimates confidence conditioned on the fixed question--answer pair, allowing confidence optimization without directly perturbing the answer-generation process. To align confidence with correctness likelihood, we construct a sampling-based surrogate from multiple model completions and optimize rank-based reinforcement learning objectives that encourage responses with higher estimated correctness likelihood to receive higher verbalized confidence. Experiments on reasoning and knowledge-intensive benchmarks show that our method improves calibration and failure prediction performance while largely preserving answer accuracy. These results demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be more reliably aligned by decoupling confidence estimation from answer generation and optimizing the relative ordering of confidence across responses.

Chen Li, Xiaoling Hu, Songzhu Zheng +2

Stony Brook University, NY, USA · Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, MA, USA · Morgan Stanley, NY, USA

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation

May 7, 2026

Measuring Black-Box Confidence via Reasoning Trajectories: Geometry, Coverage, and Verbalization

Reliable confidence estimation enables safe deployment of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning through text-only APIs. Yet the dominant black-box baseline, self-consistency over K samples, is linearly expensive and ignores the geometry of the trace. We propose a black-box trajectory-confidence score: we embed a CoT as a sliding-window trajectory and measure its convergence to external answer anchors with a one-parameter softmax. The method needs no logits, hidden states, or supervised calibrators. Across six (benchmark, reasoner) settings on MedQA-USMLE, GPQA Diamond, and MMLU-Pro with Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.6, fusing this score with coverage and verbalized-confidence channels at K=4 yields Pareto improvements over self-consistency at K=8 in 6/6 settings (median AUC 0.78 vs 0.71, deltaAUC=+0.075). A fixed-pick control (+0.060) and E5 cross-embedder replication rule out answer switching and single-vendor artifacts. Geometry peaks in the penultimate window across benchmarks and reasoners, and inverts at the terminal window on GPQA Diamond. Three unscaffolded regimes separate black-box confidence into a judge-mediated Coverage prior (C), within-trace Geometry (G), and a conditional Verbalization channel (V). Across 18 benchmark x reasoner x proposer settings, C and G provide independent signal in 18/18 and 16/18, while V contributes residual signal in 6/18. Swapping the judge from GPT-5-mini to Claude Sonnet 4.6 leaves G-only AUC unchanged (|delta|<=0.013) and shifts C-only AUC by at most +/-0.02 (kappa=0.82). Fusion beats the best single channel in 17/18 settings (median AUC 0.78, max 0.92).

Marc Boubnovski Martell, Josefa Lia Stoisser, Kaspar Märtens +4

1Novo Nordisk · University of Oxford

LLM Uncertainty Estimation CoT Reasoning Reasoning Trace Analysis Confidence Estimation in Language Models Verbalized Confidence Estimation LLM Reasoning+1

Apr 27, 2026

Distilling Self-Consistency into Verbal Confidence: A Pre-Registered Negative Result and Post-Hoc Rescue on Gemma 3 4B

Small instruct-tuned LLMs produce degenerate verbal confidence under minimal elicitation: ceiling rates above 95%, near-chance Type-2 AUROC, and Invalid validity profiles. We test whether confidence-conditioned supervised fine-tuning (CSFT) with self-consistency-derived targets can close the gap between internal information and verbal readout. A pre-registered Phase 0 protocol on Gemma 3 4B-it with a modal filter restricting training to items with correct modal answers produced a negative result: AUROC2 dropped from 0.554 to 0.509 due to label-entropy collapse in the training targets. An exploratory rescue removed the filter, training on all 2,000 calibration items. This produced a binary verbal correctness discriminator with AUROC2 = 0.774 on held-out TriviaQA, compressing a 10-sample self-consistency signal (AUROC2 = 0.999) into a single-pass readout exceeding logit entropy (0.701). The shuffled-target control showed no improvement (0.501). On MMLU, accuracy improved from 54.2% to 77.4% with the shuffled model at baseline (56.1%), supporting a target-dependent interpretation. The result is exploratory, binary rather than continuously calibrated, and observed at a single scale. It identifies two design lessons: confidence training requires label entropy, and correct targets regularise output format.

Jon-Paul Cacioli

Independent Researcher, Melbourne, Australia

Supervised Fine-Tuning Confidence Estimation in Language Models Self-Consistency Decoding Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability Language Model Distillation+1

Apr 24, 2026

Verbal Confidence Saturation in 3-9B Open-Weight Instruction-Tuned LLMs: A Pre-Registered Psychometric Validity Screen

Verbal confidence elicitation is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from LLMs. We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models (3-9B parameters, four families) produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria for item-level Type-2 discrimination under minimal numeric elicitation with greedy decoding. In a pre-registered study (OSF: osf.io/azbvx), 524 TriviaQA items were administered under numeric (0-100) and categorical (10-class) elicitation to eight models at Q5_K_M quantisation on consumer hardware, yielding 8,384 deterministic trials. A psychometric validity screen was applied to each model-format cell. All seven instruct models were classified Invalid on numeric confidence (H2 confirmed, 7/7 vs. predicted >=4/7), with a mean ceiling rate of 91.7% (H1 confirmed). Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity. Instead, it disrupted task performance in six of seven models, producing accuracy below 5% (H4 not confirmed). Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime (H5 confirmed, mean cross-validated R^2 < 0.01). Within the reasoning-distilled model, reasoning-trace length showed a strong negative partial correlation with confidence (rho = -0.36, p < .001), consistent with the Reasoning Contamination Effect. These results do not imply that internal uncertainty representations are absent. They show that minimal verbal elicitation fails to preserve internal signals at the output interface in this model-size regime. Psychometric screening should precede any downstream use of such signals.

Jon-Paul Cacioli

Independent Researcher, Melbourne, Australia

LLM Evaluation Confidence Estimation in Language Models Psychometric Validation LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation

Apr 1, 2026

Wired for Overconfidence: A Mechanistic Perspective on Inflated Verbalized Confidence in LLMs

Large language models are often not just wrong, but confidently wrong: when they produce factually incorrect answers, they tend to verbalize overly high confidence rather than signal uncertainty. Such verbalized overconfidence can mislead users and weaken confidence scores as a reliable uncertainty signal, yet its internal mechanisms remain poorly understood. We present a circuit-level mechanistic analysis of this inflated verbalized confidence in LLMs, organized around three axes: capturing verbalized confidence as a differentiable internal signal, identifying the circuits that causally inflate it, and leveraging these insights for targeted inference-time recalibration. Across two instruction-tuned LLMs on three datasets, we find that a compact set of MLP blocks and attention heads, concentrated in middle-to-late layers, consistently writes the confidence-inflation signal at the final token position. We further show that targeted inference-time interventions on these circuits substantially improve calibration. Together, our results suggest that verbalized overconfidence in LLMs is driven by identifiable internal circuits and can be mitigated through targeted intervention.

Tianyi Zhao, Yinhan He, Wendy Zheng +2

University of Virginia

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration Verbalized Confidence Estimation LLM Interpretability Causal Interventions in Language Models

Mar 26, 2026

Closing the Confidence-Faithfulness Gap in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) tend to verbalize confidence scores that are largely detached from their actual accuracy, yet the geometric relationship governing this behavior remain poorly understood. In this work, we present a mechanistic interpretability analysis of verbalized confidence, using linear probes and contrastive activation addition (CAA) steering to show that calibration and verbalized confidence signals are encoded linearly but are orthogonal to one another -- a finding consistent across three open-weight models and four datasets. Interestingly, when models are prompted to simultaneously reason through a problem and verbalize a confidence score, the reasoning process disrupts the verbalized confidence direction, exacerbating miscalibration. We term this the "Reasoning Contamination Effect." Leveraging this insight, we introduce a two-stage adaptive steering pipeline that reads the model's internal accuracy estimate and steers verbalized output to match it, substantially improving calibration alignment across all evaluated models.

Miranda Muqing Miao, Lyle Ungar

University of Pennsylvania · Department of Computer and Information Science

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Verbalized Confidence Estimation Language Model Calibration LLM Interpretability Activation Steering

Mar 19, 2026

How Uncertainty Estimation Scales with Sampling in Reasoning Models

Uncertainty estimation is critical for deploying reasoning language models, yet remains poorly understood under extended chain-of-thought reasoning. We study parallel sampling as a fully black-box approach using verbalized confidence and self-consistency. Across three reasoning models and 17 tasks spanning mathematics, STEM, and humanities, we characterize how these signals scale. Both self-consistency and verbalized confidence scale in reasoning models, but self-consistency exhibits lower initial discrimination and lags behind verbalized confidence under moderate sampling. Most uncertainty gains, however, arise from signal combination: with just two samples, a hybrid estimator improves AUROC by up to

+12

on average and already outperforms either signal alone even when scaled to much larger budgets, after which returns diminish. These effects are domain-dependent: in mathematics, the native domain of RLVR-style post-training, reasoning models achieve higher uncertainty quality and exhibit both stronger complementarity and faster scaling than in STEM or humanities.

Maksym Del, Markus Kängsepp, Marharyta Domnich +4

Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu

LLM Uncertainty Estimation Uncertainty Quantification Confidence Estimation in Language Models Confidence Estimation Large Reasoning Models Verbalized Confidence Estimation+1

Mar 18, 2026

How do LLMs Compute Verbal Confidence

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

Google DeepMind

Verbalized Confidence Estimation Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Self-Assessment Metacognition in Language Models Mechanistic Interpretability

Mar 10, 2026

Rescaling Confidence: What Scale Design Reveals About LLM Metacognition

Verbalized confidence, in which LLMs report a numerical certainty score, is widely used to estimate uncertainty in black-box settings, yet the confidence scale itself (typically 0--100) is rarely examined. We show that this design choice is not neutral. Across six LLMs and three datasets, verbalized confidence is heavily discretized, with more than 78% of responses concentrating on just three round-number values. To investigate this phenomenon, we systematically manipulate confidence scales along three dimensions: granularity, boundary placement, and range regularity, and evaluate metacognitive sensitivity using

meta\text{-}d'

. We find that a 0--20 scale consistently improves metacognitive efficiency over the standard 0--100 format, while boundary compression degrades performance and round-number preferences persist even under irregular ranges. These results demonstrate that confidence scale design directly affects the quality of verbalized uncertainty and should be treated as a first-class experimental variable in LLM evaluation.

Yuyang Dai, Yuxia Wang

INSAIT

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Uncertainty Estimation Verbalized Confidence Estimation Metacognition in Language Models Confidence Estimation