arXiv AI By Yunfan Zhou, Ye Zhu, Zhihai Wang, Jianguo Yao, Haibing Guan, Xijun Li

Certainty Is Not Just Correctness: Rethinking Token-Level Certainty in LLM Reasoning

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper investigates token‑level certainty as a proxy for correctness in large language models. It finds that certainty better predicts whether a model will answer a question correctly than it does whether a specific response is correct, and that certainty varies by token type and position. The authors show that using certainty early in generation to allocate responses and later to weight votes improves accuracy while dramatically cutting token cost.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
3d ago

Probability is Not Enough: Exploring and Counting Divergent Tokens for Reasoning Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs

The paper introduces Divergent Token Confidence (DTC), a method that estimates large language model confidence by counting tokens where two models strongly disagree during decoding. DTC uses Jensen-Shannon divergence between next-token distributions along the same reasoning trajectory and shows a near-negative correlation with answer accuracy. Experiments on multiple model families and six mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that DTC improves calibration over traditional probability-based and verbalized baselines, achieving lower expected calibration errors in both white-box and black-box settings.

By Feiyang Li, Shengjing Liu, Qi Zhan, Sijie Cheng, Weiqing Wang, Hongwen Chen, Yuxuan Yang, Wen Wang, Yile Wang, Hui Huang
arXiv Computation and Language
3d ago

LLMs learn different forms of metacognition when trained to predict their own accuracy

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