arXiv:2606. 12935v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Parallel test-time scaling samples many reasoning traces and majority-votes their answers, improving LLM accuracy but requiring traces to run to completion, incurring substantial computational overhead.
By Wenbo Chen, Puheng Li, Mengyang Liu, Weijie Su, Tianpei Xie
Parallel test-time scaling samples many reasoning traces and majority-votes their answers, improving LLM accuracy but requiring traces to run to completion, incurring substantial computational overhead. We observe that probing partial traces at intermediate checkpoints can extract current answers without disrupting generation, revealing an evolving aggregate vote.
arXiv:2509.24988v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Generating accurate and calibrated confidence estimates is critical for deploying LLMs in high-stakes or user-facing applications, and remain...
By Hanqi Xiao, Vaidehi Patil, Hyunji Lee, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Mohit Bansal
arXiv:2607. 07626v1 Announce Type: cross 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.
By Sahil Kale
arXiv:2610.00767v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Pre-training interventions are critical to alignment research, since beliefs formed during pre-training shape how a model generalizes from later trai...
By Peter Nutter, Dani Roytburg, Cl\'ement Dumas, Jinghua Ou, Shi Feng
The study trains ten open‑weight large language models (LLMs) to predict their own accuracy on factual multiple‑choice questions before answering. Results show that the models’ confidence signals split into two distinct patterns: early in training, confidence aligns with output consistency (how concentrated the answer distribution is), while later, it aligns with true accuracy but only on data similar to the training set. This indicates that calibration training may not universally teach LLMs to detect their own errors.
By Nicolas Yax, Stefano Palminteri, Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
arXiv:2601. 07965v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: When a model knows when it does not know, many possibilities emerge.
By Chenjie Hao, Weyl Lu, Yuko Ishiwaka, Zengyi Li, Weier Wan, Yubei Chen
arXiv:2604.08974v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Uncertainty quantification techniques measure confidence in language model outputs to support critical applications like hallucination detection an...
By Lorenzo Jaime Yu Flores, Cesare Spinoso di-Piano, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung
arXiv:2609.36569v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Checkpoint selection is a routine decision in supervised fine-tuning (SFT): training produces multiple checkpoints, but only one is retained. Yet fix...
By Yupeng Chang, Wenxuan Zhang, Yuan Wu
arXiv:2604. 01170v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While test-time scaling has enabled large language models to solve highly difficult tasks, state-of-the-art results come at exorbitant compute costs.
By Cai Zhou, Zekai Wang, Menghua Wu, Qianyu Julie Zhu, Flora C. Shi, Chenyu Wang, Ashia Wilson, Tommi Jaakkola, Stephen Bates
The paper introduces XConf, an experiential confidence estimator that augments a language model’s current inference with a record of its past graded episodes. By recalling similar past tasks and reflecting on past outcomes, XConf generates confidence scores without accessing logits or updating weights, achieving superior discrimination and calibration across diverse benchmarks. The method demonstrates significant gains in selective prediction, improving success rates on agent tasks by up to 8.7 points.
By Caiqi Zhang, Xiaochen Zhu, Chengzu Li, Yulong Chen, Dharshan Kumaran, Nigel Collier
LLM agents act in external environments where each action changes the state that later decisions condition on, and where a single wrong step can waste interaction budget or trigger irreversible side effects long before the final failure is observed. Reliable deployment therefore requires \emph{step-level confidence estimation}: a calibrated probability that each proposed action is productive, available \emph{before} the action is executed.