It is demonstrated that confidence-related information evolves throughout the answering process and can be anticipated before answer generation is complete, enabling significantly more reliable yet low-cost confidence estimation.
Abstract
Reliable confidence estimation is essential for deploying large language models (LLMs) in confidence-aware systems, where downstream decisions such as retrieval, tool use, and adaptive computation depend on accurately estimating answer reliability. Existing approaches, however, largely treat confidence as a property of completed responses, overlooking how confidence-related information evolves throughout the answering process. In this work, we investigate confidence from a temporal perspective by comparing pre-solution Feeling-of-Knowing (FOK) and post-solution Judgement-of-Learning (JOL) confidence estimates across frontier and open-source LLMs. We show that post-solution confidence is consistently better calibrated and more discriminative than pre-solution confidence, while linear probes trained on hidden representations recover substantially richer confidence-related information than models explicitly verbalise. Building on this observation, we introduce future confidence distillation, which trains predictors operating on pre-solution hidden representations using teacher confidence estimates produced by post-solution correctness probes. Despite requiring only pre-solution representations for inference, distilled predictors recover much of the calibration improvement achieved by post-solution confidence, remain highly sample efficient, and transfer across datasets within the same domain. Together, our findings demonstrate that confidence-related information evolves throughout the answering process and can be anticipated before answer generation is complete, enabling significantly more reliable yet low-cost confidence estimation.
ConfidenceBench, a calibration benchmark that evaluates verbalized confidence estimates in 15 frontier LLMs using the Brier score, a proper scoring rule that incentivises truthful probability reporting shows that verbalized confidence calibration is a distinct and practically important axis of LLM reliability, complementary to standard accuracy-based evaluation.
M. ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
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.
This work proposes answer instability, defined as the variability of a model’s final answer across repeated stochastic generations of the same prompt, as a simple, label-free, and black-box uncertainty signal, and demonstrates its utility for selective prediction and targeted repair, improving reliability without access to internal probabilities or additional training.
J. M. Araña, Kristine Ann M. Carandang, Ethan Robert A. Casin et al.· Annual Meeting of the Associ...· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in question answering (QA) systems, yet they may generate hallucinated or misaligned responses without reliable confidence estimates. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) offers a natural basis for selective answering, where a system answers only when its prediction is deemed reliable and abstains otherwise. However, existing uncertainty scores for LLMs are often heuristic: a threshold chosen on such scores does not, by itself, provide statistical guarantees on the error rate among accepted answers. We propose CIC, a confidence-interval-based calibration framework that converts arbitrary uncertainty scores into risk-controlled selective answering rules. Given a held-out calibration set, CIC evaluates each generated response using an application-specific alignment criterion and associates it with an uncertainty score and a binary error label. For each candidate uncertainty threshold, CIC estimates the acceptance-conditioned error rate and constructs a high-probability upper confidence bound using either Hoeffding-style or Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals. It then selects the largest threshold whose upper bound is below a user-specified risk level $\alpha$, thereby maximizing the answering rate subject to a finite-sample reliability constraint. Under exchangeability, CIC guarantees with probability at least $1-\delta$ that the selected threshold, if non-null, controls the error rate among accepted answers at level $\alpha$. We evaluate CIC on both closed-ended and open-ended QA benchmarks across seven LLMs and multiple uncertainty estimators. Experimental results show that CIC consistently achieves valid risk control while retaining strong answering efficiency, providing a practical and statistically grounded mechanism for deploying LLMs in reliability-sensitive QA workflows.
Large language models have made strong reasoning gains through supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and on-policy distillation, yet these post-training methods are usually evaluated only by final-answer accuracy. We study how they reshape confidence during reasoning. We introduce a three-stage calibration framework that evaluates confidence before, during, and after chain-of-thought generation, corresponding to difficulty estimation, early termination, and answer aggregation. Through a controlled comparison on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, we find that OPD provides the most useful pre-reasoning confidence, SFT gives the strongest online signal for early stopping, and RL produces the most reliable trace-level signal for aggregation. We further show that confidence reliability is position-dependent: RL confidence becomes informative after a path-commitment phase, while OPD confidence is useful early but can become inversely calibrated later. Based on this observation, we propose PosConf, a position-aware confidence strategy that uses confidence only from reliable relative-position intervals. PosConf improves RL answer aggregation by 6.1 points over majority voting and consistently improves OPD early stopping under tight token budgets, with gains up to 4.3 points by avoiding its later inverse-calibration region, showing that \emph{confidence in reasoning models should be used both stage-wise and position-awarely}. Our code is available at https://github.com/EIT-NLP/Post-Training-Calibration.
Shuhao Li, Guodong Du, Anhao Zhao et al.· 0 citations
Black-box large language models need confidence scores that can separate likely-correct from likely-incorrect outputs, enabling systems to prioritize human review, route uncertain cases to stronger models, or choose abstention thresholds on development data. Yet existing confidence estimators face a cost-quality trade-off: verbal confidence is cheap but is often overconfident, while sampling-based uncertainty is more informative but scales linearly with the number of samples per query. We propose \textsc{POOL} (\emph{Propagated Uncertainty Over Lookalikes}),a cost-efficient framework that addresses this trade-off taking inspiration from group-testing.\textsc{POOL} clusters query stems with overlaps, evaluates a base estimator on representative medoids, softly propagates confidence scores to nearby queries, and selectively evaluates high-disagreement cases. We instantiate this framework with \textsc{Hy@}$p$, a hybrid estimator that combines verbal confidence with spectral answer diversity computed from the negative von Neumann entropy of sampled answer embeddings.Across six domains from three datasets and five black-box LLMs, \textsc{Hy@}5 achieves higher average AUROC than verbal confidence and \textsc{Vn@}10 sampling while using half as many samples as \textsc{Vn@}10. \textsc{POOL}-\textsc{Hy@}5 retains 93.5--97.9\% of its AUROC while saving 19.3--39.3\% of generations. On paraphrase-dense workloads, generation savings rise to 73-76\%, showing that semantic redundancy can be leveraged to lower confidence-estimation costs.
Rounak Sharma, Ananya B. Sai, Soumyabrata Pal· 0 citations