Tracing Uncertainty in Language Model "Reasoning"

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07776v1
• Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 14:16:37 GMT
• Title: Tracing Uncertainty in Language Model "Reasoning"
• Abstract summary: Language model (LM) "reasoning", commonly described as Chain-of-Thought or test-time scaling, often improves benchmark performance.<n>We study these dynamics by treating the "reasoning" traces, the intermediate token sequences generated by LMs, as evolving model states.
• Score: 46.61902399979181
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Language model (LM) "reasoning", commonly described as Chain-of-Thought or test-time scaling, often improves benchmark performance, but the dynamics underlying this process remain poorly understood. We study these dynamics through the lens of uncertainty quantification by treating the "reasoning" traces, the intermediate token sequences generated by LMs, as evolving model states. We summarize each trace by an uncertainty trace profile: a small set of features describing the shape of the uncertainty signal over its trace, such as its slope and linearity. We find that across five LMs evaluated on GSM8K and ProntoQA, these profiles predict whether a trace yields a correct final answer with AUROC up to 0.807, improving markedly on recent related work. We reach AUROC 0.801 using only the first few hundred tokens of full traces, suggesting that errors can be detected early in the generation. A detailed comparison of correct and incorrect traces further reveals qualitatively distinct uncertainty profiles, with correct traces showing a steeper and less linear decline in uncertainty. Together, the results suggest that our method, grounded in decision-making under uncertainty, provides a principled lens for studying the generative process underlying LM "reasoning".

Related papers

• TrAC: Trace-Conditioned Answer Consistency for Efficient Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs [5.676157325165344]
  Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent reasoning traces that nevertheless lead to incorrect answers.<n>TrAC is a correctness-supervised uncertainty quantification framework that combines active and passive signals anchored to one completed reasoning trace.<n>TrAC improves macro AUROC by 1.8% and reduces AURC by 3.4% relative to eight-sample self-consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-01T03:43:31Z)
• CaliDist: Calibrating Large Language Models via Behavioral Robustness to Distraction [51.56484100374058]
  Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's behavioral robustness.<n>We introduce textscCaliDist, a novel post-hoc calibration approach that directly measures and penalizes a model's susceptibility to distraction.<n>textscCaliDist consistently achieves lower Expected Error (ECE) and Brier Score compared with strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T07:27:53Z)
• SELFDOUBT: Uncertainty Quantification for Reasoning LLMs via the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio [0.038379177968040606]
  We propose SELFDOUBT, a single-pass uncertainty framework for reasoning language models.<n>Our key signal, the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio (HVR), detects whether a reasoning trace contains uncertainty markers and, if so, whether they are offset by explicit selfchecking behavior.<n> SELFDOUBT operates on a single observed reasoning trajectory, making it suitable for latency- and cost-constrained deployment over any proprietary API.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T19:19:29Z)
• Information Fidelity in Tool-Using LLM Agents: A Martingale Analysis of the Model Context Protocol [69.11739400975445]
  We introduce the first theoretical framework for analyzing error accumulation in Model Context Protocol (MCP) agents.<n>We show that cumulative distortion exhibits linear growth and high-probability deviations bounded by $O(sqrtT)$.<n>Key findings include: semantic weighting reduces distortion by 80%, and periodic re-grounding approximately every 9 steps suffices for error control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T21:08:53Z)
• Outcome Accuracy is Not Enough: Aligning the Reasoning Process of Reward Models [108.26461635308796]
  We introduce Rationale Consistency, a fine-grained metric that quantifies the alignment between the model's reasoning process and human judgment.<n>Our evaluation of frontier models reveals that rationale consistency effectively discriminates among state-of-the-art models.<n>We introduce a hybrid signal that combines rationale consistency with outcome accuracy for GenRM training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T15:24:52Z)
• Predicting LLM Correctness in Prosthodontics Using Metadata and Hallucination Signals [4.680384065487852]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and medical education.<n>This study investigates the feasibility of predicting correctness by analyzing a general-purpose model (GPT-4o) and a reasoning-centric model (OSS-120B) on a multiple-choice prosthodontics exam.<n>Our findings demonstrate that this metadata-based approach can improve accuracy by up to +7.14% and achieve a precision of 83.12% over a baseline that assumes all answers are correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-27T07:51:50Z)
• Mitigating LLM Hallucination via Behaviorally Calibrated Reinforcement Learning [32.32593439144886]
  Behavior-calibrated reinforcement learning allows smaller models to surpass frontier models in uncertainty quantification.<n>Our model's log-scale Accuracy-to-Hallucination Ratio gain (0.806) exceeds GPT-5's (0.207) in a challenging in-domain evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T22:51:48Z)
• CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
  We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z)
• Unconditional Truthfulness: Learning Unconditional Uncertainty of Large Language Models [104.55763564037831]
  We train a regression model that leverages attention maps, probabilities on the current generation step, and recurrently computed uncertainty scores from previously generated tokens.<n>Our evaluation shows that the proposed method is highly effective for selective generation, achieving substantial improvements over rivaling unsupervised and supervised approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T09:42:26Z)
• Language Model Cascades: Token-level uncertainty and beyond [65.38515344964647]
  Recent advances in language models (LMs) have led to significant improvements in quality on complex NLP tasks. Cascading offers a simple strategy to achieve more favorable cost-quality tradeoffs. We show that incorporating token-level uncertainty through learned post-hoc deferral rules can significantly outperform simple aggregation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T21:02:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.