REVIEW 8 cited by
Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?
read the original abstract
Reasoning language models have set state-of-the-art (SOTA) records on many challenging benchmarks, enabled by multi-step reasoning induced using reinforcement learning. However, like previous language models, reasoning models are prone to generating confident, plausible responses that are incorrect (hallucinations). Knowing when and how much to trust these models is critical to the safe deployment of reasoning models in real-world applications. To this end, we explore uncertainty quantification of reasoning models in this work. Specifically, we ask three fundamental questions: First, are reasoning models well-calibrated? Second, does deeper reasoning improve model calibration? Finally, inspired by humans' innate ability to double-check their thought processes to verify the validity of their answers and their confidence, we ask: can reasoning models improve their calibration by explicitly reasoning about their chain-of-thought traces? We introduce introspective uncertainty quantification (UQ) to explore this direction. In extensive evaluations on SOTA reasoning models across a broad range of benchmarks, we find that reasoning models: (i) are typically overconfident, with self-verbalized confidence estimates often greater than 85% particularly for incorrect responses, (ii) become even more overconfident with deeper reasoning, and (iii) can become better calibrated through introspection (e.g., o3-Mini and DeepSeek R1) but not uniformly (e.g., Claude 3.7 Sonnet becomes more poorly calibrated). Lastly, we conclude with important research directions to design necessary UQ benchmarks and improve the calibration of reasoning models.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Operadic consistency: a label-free signal for compositional reasoning failures in LLMs
Operadic consistency is a new per-question signal that correlates strongly with accuracy (r 0.86-0.94) across four multi-hop QA datasets and improves selective prediction over CoT-SC baselines.
-
When to Act, Ask, or Learn: Uncertainty-Aware Policy Steering
UPS framework uses conformal prediction to calibrate VLM verifiers for choosing between high-confidence action execution, natural language task queries, or policy interventions, then applies residual learning from int...
-
When Calibration Rankings Reverse: Accuracy-Controlled Evaluation for Fair Comparison of LLMs
Global calibration metrics like ECE are confounded by accuracy; the proposed ACE framework with three accuracy-controlled views shows many prior calibration advantages weaken or reverse.
-
Large Language Models Decide Early and Explain Later
LLMs settle on their answer after a minority of CoT tokens and produce an average 760 more as post-decision explanation, enabling early stopping that saves 500 tokens per query at a 2% accuracy cost.
-
Unsupervised Confidence Calibration for Reasoning LLMs from a Single Generation
Unsupervised single-generation confidence calibration for reasoning LLMs via offline self-consistency proxy distillation outperforms baselines on math and QA tasks and improves selective prediction.
-
How do LLMs Compute Verbal Confidence
Mechanistic experiments on Gemma 3 27B, Qwen 2.5 7B and Magistral Small 24B show verbal confidence is cached at post-answer positions from answer tokens and captures richer answer-quality information beyond token log-...
-
Scaling with Confidence: Calibrating Confidence of LLMs for Adaptive Test Time Scaling
C3RL is a new RL algorithm combining correctness, calibration, and reference accuracy rewards to improve LLM confidence calibration, enabling CAS to outperform majority voting with up to 12.33x lower inference cost.
-
Position: The Hidden Costs and Measurement Gaps of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards
The paper identifies confounds in RLVR evaluations that inflate apparent gains and proposes a minimum standard for budget-matched, contamination-aware assessment with calibration tracking.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.