# Embedding Perturbation may Better Reflect Intermediate-Step Uncertainty in LLM Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02427 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02427/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 26 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6572/) (2014)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Beyond the 80/20 Rule: High-Entropy Minority Tokens Drive Effective Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01939/) (2025)
- [How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.00955/) (2020)
- [Fact-Checking the Output of Large Language Models via Token-Level Uncertainty Quantification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04696/) (2024)
- [Shifting Attention to Relevance: Towards the Predictive Uncertainty Quantification of Free-Form Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.01379/) (2023)
- [To Believe or Not to Believe Your LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.02543/) (2024)
- [Forking Paths in Neural Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.07961/) (2024)
- [Entropy-Gated Branching for Efficient Test-Time Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.21961/) (2025)
- [Hard2Verify: A Step-Level Verification Benchmark for Open-Ended Frontier Math](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13744/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant breakthroughs across various domains, but they can still produce unreliable or misleading outputs. For responsible LLM applications, uncertainty quantification techniques are used to estimate a model's uncertainty about its outputs, indicating the likelihood that those outputs may be problematic. For LLM reasoning tasks, it is essential to estimate uncertainty not only in the final answer but also in the intermediate reasoning process, particularly to identify where uncertainty arises. Such information may enable more fine-grained and targeted interventions during inference. In this study, we investigate which metrics can effectively localize uncertain places within an LLM reasoning trajectory. Our study reveals that uncertain intermediate continuations are more likely to occur at tokens that are highly sensitive to perturbations in the embeddings of preceding tokens. In our experiments, we show that such perturbation-based metrics achieve stronger performance in localizing uncertain intermediate steps than baseline methods, including probability-based, sampling-based, and Bayesian-based approaches. Meanwhile, our proposed metrics also enjoy good simplicity and efficiency.