How Uncertainty Estimation Scales with Sampling in Reasoning Models
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Uncertainty estimation is critical for deploying reasoning language models, yet remains poorly understood under extended chain-of-thought reasoning. We study parallel sampling as a fully black-box approach using verbalized confidence and self-consistency. Across three reasoning models and 17 tasks spanning mathematics, STEM, and humanities, we characterize how these signals scale. Both self-consistency and verbalized confidence scale in reasoning models, but self-consistency exhibits lower initial discrimination and lags behind verbalized confidence under moderate sampling. Most uncertainty gains, however, arise from signal combination: with just two samples, a hybrid estimator improves AUROC by up to +12 on average and already outperforms either signal alone even when scaled to much larger budgets, after which returns diminish. These effects are domain-dependent: in mathematics, the native domain of RLVR-style post-training, reasoning models achieve higher uncertainty quality and exhibit both stronger complementarity and faster scaling than in STEM or humanities.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 19 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2026.
Builds on
19 of 22 references.
Closest ancestors · 6
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?22 Jun
- 2025Understanding Reasoning in Thinking Language Models via Steering Vectors22 Jun
- 2025Read Your Own Mind: Reasoning Helps Surface Self-Confidence Signals in LLMs28 May
- 2025Reasoning Models Better Express Their Confidence20 May
- 2025Thinking Out Loud: Do Reasoning Models Know When They're Right?9 Apr
- 2023SelfCheck: Using LLMs to Zero-Shot Check Their Own Step-by-Step Reasoning1 Aug
Other references · 13
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 974
- 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 812
- 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 751
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 415
- 2025General-Reasoner: Advancing LLM Reasoning Across All Domainscited by 135
- 2023Quantifying Uncertainty in Answers from any Language Model and Enhancing their Trustworthinesscited by 122
- 2024Combining Confidence Elicitation and Sample-based Methods for Uncertainty Quantification in Misinformation Mitigationcited by 19
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026DirEAG: Dirichlet Evidence Aggregation for Calibrating Verbalized Confidence in Mathematical Reasoning
- 2025A Theoretical Study on Bridging Internal Probability and Self-Consistency for LLM Reasoning
- 2025Let the Model Distribute Its Doubt: Confidence Estimation through Verbalized Probability Distribution
- 2025Trace Length is a Simple Uncertainty Signal in Reasoning Models
- 2026Complementing Self-Consistency with Cross-Model Disagreement for Uncertainty Quantification
- 2026Does Inference Scaling Improve Reasoning Faithfulness? A Multi-Model Analysis of Self-Consistency Tradeoffs
- 2026Quantifying Consistency in LLM Logical Reasoning via Structural Uncertainty
- 2026SELFDOUBT: Uncertainty Quantification for Reasoning LLMs via the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio